You’ve heard of ambulance-chasing lawyers who seem to turn up at accident scenes whenever they think they can convert a fender-bender into a contingency fee.

Get ready to meet the tractor-chasers: a gang of attorneys on the hunt for clients in corn country. They’re trying to find farmers who will join a lawsuit against a seed technology company.

It’s a rotten bargain that makes vague promises about a possible payoff but instead threatens the future of agriculture. Farmers should reject it. The whole thing is a terrible mess.

I first heard about the lawsuit a few weeks ago, when one of these lawyers visited my small town in Iowa. He seemed to offer an irresistible deal for corn growers: In exchange for our signatures on legal documents, he promised to pay our filing fees. At an undetermined point in the distant future, he said, we might receive compensation checks to make up for a decline in corn prices.

He also added that he’d take 40 percent of any settlement.

On the surface, it sounded like a no-brainer. At worst, we’d never hear from him again. At best, we’d all get a little money.

Here’s the problem: Suing a seed technology company sends the terrible signal that whenever they or any other agricultural business encounters a regulatory hiccup, the farmers who benefit from its work will litigate.

That’s bad enough, but it gets worse: A successful lawsuit essentially would give China veto power over the technological innovations that American farmers need.

The controversy started in 2013, when China refused to accept a shipment of corn from the United States, on the grounds that it contained a trait for pest resistance that Chinese regulators had not yet approved.

China’s logic was self-serving: U.S. regulators had approved the corn in 2010, so there was no possible safety or environmental concern. Moreover, China had been importing the corn without complaint. This was no smuggling operation.

China’s true objective was to weasel its way out of purchase contracts—that is, to renege on its obligations—and the bit about regulatory approval was just a face-saving excuse.

What happened next hurt businesses and American farmers: The price of corn dropped.

The price of corn fluctuates every day, of course, based on a range of complicated variables that influence supply and demand. Although we often have a handle on the large trends that shape the overall price of corn, it’s impossible to know with any precision all of the factors that influence it.

So although it’s safe to say that China’s decision probably caused the price of corn to fall a few cents per bushel, in a reduction that affected the bottom line of corn farmers like me, we can’t know exactly how much it cost us. Trying to figure it out in a courtroom, as the lawyers propose, is the economic equivalent of filling out your NCAA basketball tournament bracket by consulting a Magic 8-Ball.

Moreover, the lawsuit distracts us from what should be a major objective of trade diplomacy: compatible regulations between the United States and China, so that when American regulators determine that a new variety of corn is ready for commercialization, China will accept the decision without delay.

The lawsuit sends exactly the wrong message. Rather than condemning China for its two-faced behavior and its broken regulatory system, the litigation puts farmers in the bad position of attacking a seed company whose innovations have improved the business of agriculture.

Farmers and consumers are much better off than they were a generation ago, before the biotech revolution developed new methods of delivering safe and healthy food from farm to fork in economically and environmentally sustainable ways.

We’ll continue to reap the innovative advantages of genetic modification and other approaches—but not if we let lawyers who seek to fatten their bank accounts build obstacles to research and investment, or if we sue some of our best allies whenever China or any other country wants to break a contract.

Farmers who join the lawsuit are thinking about a short-term gain for themselves rather than a long-term benefit for agriculture. A recent editorial published in the Grand Island Independent (Nebraska) says it very well: “A lawsuit that risks the long-term spirit of innovation to appease the short-term frustration of corn producers would appear ill-conceived.”

As farmers, we need to stick together. We should resist the trolling lawyers who are fanning the flames and refuse to sign up with the tractor-chasers.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). The author did not collaborate with any seed technology companies when writing this op-ed.

That’s why President Obama was wise late last year to announce his intention to restore diplomatic ties with Cuba. The United States may open an embassy in Havana as soon as next month, when diplomats meet at the Summit of the Americas in Panama.

It’s about time. We need to talk and trade more with this island nation.

Cuba’s Communist government seized power more than five decades ago. Way back then, perhaps it made sense to try to cut Cuba off from the rest of the world. The regime in Havana, after all, is one of the world’s most oppressive. We couldn’t pretend as if nothing had happened.

Yet we’d be foolish to believe that our traditional approach to Cuba has done any good. Its intentions were admirable, but its results are disappointing. We certainly haven’t helped the Cuban people: They’re just as poor and oppressed as ever.

When I visited the island nation eight years ago as part of an agricultural delegation, I saw the poverty of the place with my own eyes. I also sensed the ingenuity of the people. Havana is full of classic cars, well maintained by expert mechanics, on account of the fact that nobody can afford to buy a new one. I felt transported back in time.

Yet our own policy of isolationism is what’s stuck in the past. If we care about Cuba’s fate—to say nothing of our own economic opportunity—we should move into the future with a policy of engagement.

Many Americans favor this new approach, according to a January survey by the Pew Research Center. Sixty-three percent approve of reestablishing diplomatic ties with Cuba, and 66 percent support an end to the trade embargo.

This would help American farmers. We’re already allowed to export a portion of what we grow and raise to Cuba. Under an exception to the embargo granted in 2000, we can sell food there. Soybeans, rice, and wheat are popular products, and Cuba is actually our fifth-largest foreign market for frozen chicken.

Yet we don’t sell nearly what we could, on account of a requirement that Cuba purchase our goods with cash rather than credit. By lifting this restriction and others, American farmers easily could export more than $1 billion in food each year. Last year, however, food sales dropped to $291 million from a high of $710 million in 2008, according to Reuters.

With 11 million people, Cuba represents a big and almost untapped market, just 90 miles from our shores. The U.S. Grains Council recently estimated that if our farmers dominated its markets the way they should, Cuba would be the 12th largest destination for American corn.

More trade would help America’s bottom line—and it also might improve living conditions in Cuba. Since Raul Castro succeeded his brother Fidel as president in 2008, reports The Economist, “Cubans enjoy more everyday freedoms.” This includes economic freedom: About 20 percent of the country’s workers are now employed in an emerging private sector.

There can be no political freedom without economic freedom—and so encouraging these positive steps may lead to even greater strides soon. New interactions with American businesses and greater availability of American products would give Cuba’s people a better taste of economic freedom, which leads to personal freedom.

People who lived in the Soviet Union during the Cold War testify to the importance of the black-market trade in blue jeans and Beatles albums. We should look forward to a time when Cuba’s people, living in freedom, reminisce about buying Major League Baseball jerseys and DVDs of “American Sniper,” as well as corn grown in Iowa and wheat from North Dakota.

Cuba’s government has tried to test our limits, with demands of financial compensation for economic losses suffered during the embargo and the transfer of the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. These are plainly absurd. Cuba also seeks removal from the Department of State’s list of terrorism sponsors—a request that probably deserves an unbiased review.

Let’s keep on talking—and move on to trading more goods to create personal freedoms.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

A few weeks ago, my daughter took six of my grandchildren to Ground Zero in a major measles outbreak: Disneyland.

We had no fears about it. They’ve had their vaccinations, unlike the victims who contracted the disease. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) speculates that a foreign traveler had become infected, visited the amusement park, and spread the highly contagious virus among people who had not received their immunizations.

Through the first two months of this year, the CDC recorded 170 cases of measles in four separate outbreaks. This has sparked a national debate over childhood vaccinations. It has also exposed a dangerous movement of people who chose to ignore science and insist that vaccinations are risky.

Some fads are harmless, such as humming “Uptown Funk” or watching the “Sharknado” movies. I’m not sure I’d call the anti-vaccination movement a full-blown fad, but it has become disturbingly popular. In many places—including affluent areas with well-educated parents—vaccination rates have started to dip below the level needed to prevent outbreaks.

Let’s be clear: Every child should be vaccinated. This is not a personal opinion, but rather a scientific consensus.

Shortly before measles hit the headlines, the Pew Research Center asked members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science whether childhood vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella should be required. A remarkable 86 percent said yes.

The good news is that most Americans agree. The same survey found that 68 percent of adults support mandatory vaccinations. We still need to close an 18-point gap between the beliefs of scientists and the public, but at least we’re dealing with healthy majorities that are on the same page.

On another important matter, however, the scientists and the public are much further apart. In fact, they disagree with each other.

The dispute involves food with genetically modified ingredients. A whopping 88 percent of scientists say GM food is safe to eat. In other words, scientists are slightly more likely to believe in the safety of GM foods than in the need for mandatory vaccinations.

The public, however, holds a radically different view: Only 37 percent of Americans think GM foods are safe to eat.

That’s a separation of 51 points.

This isn’t a mere gap. It’s a yawning chasm. We need to close it through a deliberate campaign of public education that speaks the truth about science and technology.

If we fail, our ignorance will inflict untold suffering on the world.

Demographers expect the global population to pass 9 billion by 2050. We’ll have to find a way to feed everyone, using sustainable farming practices that protect the environment. One of the most promising approaches involves the genetic modification of crops, which boosts production and helps us grow more food on less land.

We won’t make the most of this opportunity, however, if ordinary people reject the scientific consensus on GM food.

The recent controversy over vaccines offers a sign of hope. Perhaps you had heard the rumors that vaccines spread disease rather than prevent it. Maybe you had listened to a celebrity on a talk show.

If you scratched beneath the surface—if you looked up some of the research on vaccines or read a serious piece of journalism about the measles outbreaks—then you soon learned the truth. The claim that vaccines are bad for you is bogus. The infamous paper that put forward this finding was withdrawn and its author discredited.

Most people now know beyond any reasonable doubt that refusing to vaccinate children puts them and others at risk. Children who don’t receive vaccinations but remain healthy are lucky. They’re protected by herd immunity, which means they’re protected by all of the other parents who did the right thing for their own kids.

When it comes to GM foods, we face a similar choice. Accepting new technologies will give us a chance to feed the world. Rejecting them invites a bleak future in which people all over the planet will go hungry, suffer from malnutrition, and die of starvation.

We must inoculate ourselves against the virus of misinformation—and accept the scientific consensus on the safety of GM food.

Reg Clause is a Jefferson, Iowa farmer and business consultant. He volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

As a member of North Dakota’s state legislature, I take my constitutional duties seriously. Serving in office requires me to take an oath: I solemnly swear to support the U.S. Constitution, as well as my state’s constitution.

I’ve spoken these words five times—most recently about two months ago, as we prepared to begin our 2015 legislative session in Bismarck.

The Constitution is never far from my mind. I think about it constantly, as we go about drafting bills and voting on laws. I keep it close in a literal sense as well: There’s a copy in my nightstand drawer.

I’m sure that many members of Congress are the same way. That’s why I’m confident a majority of them will support legislation to grant Trade Promotion Authority to President Obama.

I understand why a few have expressed doubts about TPA. Although most support the expansion of global trade, they worry about the way President Obama has abused his constitutional authority, issuing executive orders that deny Congress a voice on key matters of law and policy.

The Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that is defined by a separation of powers, to make sure that no branch of government would grow too strong. And so Congress must do everything it can to resist a White House that has overstepped its constitutional bounds on a wide range of issues, including immigration, health care, and welfare.

Yet opposing TPA is the wrong way to go about it.

First and foremost, it would hurt our economy. In 2014, the United States exported more than $2.3 trillion in goods and services, an all-time high. These sales support millions of high-paying jobs—and just about every economist who studies global trade thinks that we can do even better with new trade agreements.

Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican congressman and former vice-presidential candidate, recently pointed out that a generation ago, trade supported about one of every ten jobs in the United States. Today, the rate is one in five.

Even North Dakota, a landlocked state in the middle of a continent, depends on exports. Much of what we grow on our farms and build in our factories goes abroad, in search of customers in foreign countries. These sales bring back more than $5 billion to our state each year, keeping roughly 20,000 people employed.

Most of these goods and services go to Canada and the other nations of the Pacific Rim—and our trade diplomats are close to completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a major trade agreement that will make it easier for our products to cross these same borders.

What’s more, TPA does not grant the president any authority that he does not already possess. Instead, it simply affirms the role of Congress in the negotiation of free-trade agreements. TPA says that when the president submits trade proposals to Congress, lawmakers will consider each one with an up-or-down vote.

If the president were determined to abuse his authority on trade, after all, he would simply put trade deals into effect without consulting Congress. TPA explicitly requires him to seek congressional approval.

This approach strengthens the hand of our trade diplomats because it signals to other countries that we’re serious about entering agreements. TPA places only a single limit on Congress by stopping protectionists from offering poison-pill amendments written by labor-union lobbyists.

In other words, Congress can say “yea” or “nea” to trade agreements, but it can’t say “maybe.” Lawmakers enjoy the last word—and they must deliver a last word on completed agreements, rather than delay votes or ignore agreements altogether. If TPA forces them to do anything, it merely forces them to meet their obligations as lawmakers.

One of Obama’s toughest critics in Congress is Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican who chairs a key oversight committee. “This president has earned our distrust,” he told the Washington Post last month. “But having said that, I still support TPA.”

I share this skepticism of the current administration—but no legislator should let partisanship get in the way of his obligation to do what’s right.

Terry Wanzek grows wheat, corn, soybean and pinto beans on a family farm in North Dakota. He serves as a ND State Senator and volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

The ports on the West Coast are open for business again—and not a moment too soon.

Technically, they never closed, though for months they’ve suffered from a work slowdown that has sucked billions of dollars from the U.S. economy. Last weekend, employers and union leaders reached a tentative agreement on a new, five-year contract that promises to end the disruption.

I’m glad the ordeal appears to be over, but also annoyed that it ever started. A country that seeks to partake as a reliable partner in global trade shouldn’t fall hostage to a labor dispute.

The first step in the recovery is for both sides to ratify their agreement, which covers 29 ports along the Pacific Ocean, from San Diego in the south to Puget Sound in the north. More than 15 million loaded containers move through these ports each year, and one-eighth of our country’s GDP is connected to this cargo.

In recent months, however, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union ordered its 20,000 members to put the brakes on this activity. Think of it as a slow-motion strike, except that labor leaders were careful never to use that potent word. They knew that an actual strike would have hurt their cause among the public as well as risk triggering the federal Taft-Hartley law, forcing them back to work.

Instead, they used the slowdown to pressure the Pacific Maritime Association, which represents shipping companies and terminal operators, for a new contract, following the expiration of a previous one last summer. In doing so, they took advantage of the 9 million Americans whose jobs depend on West Coast port traffic as well as consumers who are going to see higher prices in stores, even if they don’t quite understand why.

The ILWU’s behavior turns its motto into an ironic slogan: “An injury to one is an injury to all.”

I’m one of the injured parties. As a pistachio grower in California, I rely on West Coast ports. More than 80 percent of my nuts head to foreign markets in Asia and Europe. When exports came to a standstill, however, we had to move our pistachios to ports in Houston and Savannah by road and rail, at great expense.

The good news is that our pistachios left the country. Unlike many agricultural products, they store well. The bad news is that the increased cost of transportation makes us less competitive. Our international rivals delighted in our ports fiasco. The primary beneficiary was Iran, a top producer of pistachios and one of America’s great enemies.

The fate of my pistachios may not seem like much, but it’s symptomatic of a larger problem. Many farmers suffered as their fruits, vegetables, and meats spoiled. “If you talk to the citrus farmers whose citrus rotted on the port, that’s damage that has been done,” observed Secretary of Labor Tom Perez last week.

This makes no sense: Our country suffers a trade imbalance that would be much worse without agricultural exports, and we live in a world cursed by food insecurity and malnutrition. The ports slowdown has been both an economic and humanitarian disaster.

I’m reluctant to get in the middle of an industry’s fight over wages and benefits, but the ILWU’s full-time workers earn $147,000 per year and also receive $82,000 in employer-paid benefits, according to the Wall Street Journal. One of the major differences in their current quarrel with management involves the question of who will pay Obamacare’s “Cadillac tax” on gilded health-care plans, set to take effect in 2018.

So we’re not talking about blue-collar men and women who struggle to earn a living.

Even if the two sides approve their deal, things won’t return to normal for a while, as longshoremen reduce a big backlog of containers ready to enter and leave the country. “U.S. manufacturers, exporters, and retailers face months of continuing supply chain disruption from the after-effects of a simmering labor dispute,” wrote the Financial Times on Sunday.

I’m happy that business is back at the ports. But did it have to vanish in the first place?

Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, onions, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He volunteers as a board member of Truth About Trade & Technology Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

If the Girl Scouts were to give out badges for courage in the face of controversy, they could award one to themselves—for fending off a smear campaign that targets cookies and science.

That’s because the enemies of biotechnology decided to pick on the Girl Scouts, demanding that the youth organization remove genetically modified ingredients from their delicious cookies, such as Thin Mints – which happen to be my personal favorite.

These tasteless activists have organized an online petition that currently boasts nearly 40,000 signatures—and they’ve even had the gall to make the public face of their effort a sweet-looking seven-year-old named Alicia.

I’m Canadian, so I didn’t join the Girl Scouts of America. Instead, I grew up as a member of its sister group, the Girl Guides of Canada. We sold cookies too. We also learned important life lessons about friendship, responsibility and achievement. I earned badges in everything from first aid and baking to firearm safety and public speaking.

Today, I’m a farmer in rural Saskatchewan—and when I became the first female president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, I knew that this accomplishment was due in part to my experience as a Girl Guide.

My family grows wheat, chickpeas, and many other crops, including canola, which is a GMO product. We choose biotechnology because it’s a tool that helps our canola plants overcome the weeds that compete for water and soil nutrients. Because of genetic modification, we grow more food on less land, in a sustainable-farming strategy that makes both economic and environmental sense.

Unfortunately, some people refuse to accept the science and safety of GMOs. They strive to ban these crops from our farms and these ingredients from our foods. They demand regulations whose purpose is to strangle innovation rather than ensure public health, as well as warning labels that aim to frighten consumers rather than inform them.

Their anti-Girl Scouts propaganda is just another front in the same war, as they try to bully a private group into eliminating GMOs from a popular line of cookies.

In an inspiring demonstration of “girl power,” the Girl Scouts have defended their responsible way of doing business. “Our bakers determine whether to use GMOs in Girl Scout Cookies based on a range of market-related factors and depending on the specific cookie recipe,” says their website. “It is important to note that there is worldwide scientific support for the safety of currently commercialized ingredients derived from genetically modified crops.”

The Girl Scouts point out the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the U.S. Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association support GMOs. More than 1 TRILLION meals have been eaten around the globe without a single case of detrimental health effects. Not a single one.

The Girl Scouts go even further and conclude their statement with this vital observation: “In addition, in the future, GMOs may offer a way to help feed an ever-increasing world population.” What a wonderful position to take when teaching our children about hunger and empathy.

I applaud the Girl Scouts for their clear presentation of the facts and a stance based on sound science. It would be so easy to surrender to the loud complaints of outspoken activists—but the Girl Scouts know that truth is on their side, and they’ve chosen to stand their ground.

We shouldn’t have expected anything less, of course: The Girl Scouts and the Girl Guides promote courage, confidence, and character. They teach skills and urge achievement, turning today’s girls into tomorrow’s leaders who will succeed in every field of endeavor.

We’re always hearing that more girls should study math, science, and engineering. Crusades against Girl Scout Cookies and based on scientific illiteracy only will discourage them. Anti-GMO protestors threaten to make girls fear science and technology, rather than pursue careers in it.

One of the most popular commercials during the Super Bowl questioned the phrase “like a girl,” suggesting that it shouldn’t be a putdown but rather a compliment.

When it comes to farming, science, and GMOs, let’s hope that “acting like a girl” comes to mean behaving as the Girl Scouts do right now.

It sounds like a great idea for a badge to me.

Cherilyn and her husband own a diversified grain farm in Mossbank, Saskatchewan, Canada. In addition to farming, Cherilyn is active in many agricultural policy initiatives to improve the sustainability of agriculture and advocate for modern agricultural practices. Cherilyn is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Flu season is upon us—and countless Americans are reaching for orange juice. They’re hoping its abundance of vitamin C will help them stay healthy, or at least using the drink to soothe sore throats.

But what if orange juice disappeared completely?

This question haunts Florida’s orange growers. Just as we’re struggling to keep our bodies healthy, they’re trying to help their trees resist a terrible disease called “citrus greening.” It threatens to wipe out the state’s oranges, tangerines, and grapefruit.

Working with researchers, the citrus growers may have come up with a creative solution that involves biotechnology. One of America’s great nutritional traditions—a glass of orange juice in the morning—could depend on the success of their plans, plus the approval of regulators and ultimately, consumers.

Earlier this month, I toured orange groves in south central Florida to learn more about citrus greening. Because of the disease, healthy citrus trees in the area have become hard to find. Bugs and bacteria, originally suspected from China, have caused the ailment to spread almost everywhere. There is not a single orange grove in Florida that is not infected.

It doesn’t take a citrus expert to spot sick trees. Their leaves are sparse rather than dense. You can see right through their foliage to what’s on the other side. The color of the leaves is wrong as well. Rather than the vibrant green of springtime, it’s the worn-out green of autumn. Moreover, healthy trees cling to their fruit, while the sick ones let them drop to the ground.

Infected trees can produce oranges for juicing, and citrus greening does not affect human health. Yet it has ravaged the industry that surrounds the Sunshine State’s signature agricultural product as well as the tens of thousands of people who grow, pack, and ship oranges and orange juice.

Since citrus greening showed up about a decade ago, Florida’s orange production has fallen by about half—and if it falls much more, the citrus business may become economically unsustainable. Our oranges won’t come from Florida anymore.

More than orange juice is at stake. After squeezing, a lot of the leftover pulp becomes feed for my cattle—not only is it good for them, but it allows us to use citrus in multiple ways. Nothing goes to waste, in accordance with the principles of sustainable agriculture.

Growers have tried to fight citrus greening in every way imaginable. They’ve scoured the planet for varieties of citrus with natural resistance. They’ve studied wasps from Pakistan that hunt the insects that carry the disease. They’ve even built special heated tents to keep the trees healthy.

For years, nothing seemed to work. Citrus greening kept on leaping from tree to tree and grove to grove. It looked unstoppable.

Then the industry turned to biotechnology. Seeing how genetic modification had improved farming in other parts of the country, it wondered whether the same tools of modern science might help Florida citrus survive. Then, a few years ago, researchers in Texas discovered that by inserting genes from spinach plants into citrus trees, the citrus trees became more resistant to citrus greening.

As of today, there are no research results or indication that citrus greening can be solved without genetically improved citrus trees. Science and technology are needed to save the citrus industry. This is a necessity – not just a ‘niceity’.

What happens next remains unclear. The technology could receive a first step in commercial approval this year, giving ordinary farmers in the near future a tool that holds the potential to save Florida’s oranges. This will require an involved decision from regulators. They will need to make a decision based on sound science, not the scientific illiteracy that has caused some people to demand special warning labels on food with GM ingredients.

The next step involves consumer acceptance. Will people drink orange juice that comes from genetically modified trees? There’s no reason why they shouldn’t: We eat GM food every day and we’ve been doing it for years.

Will spinach save oranges? There’s something almost poetic about this solution, as two excellent sources of nutrition join together, keeping us well fed and healthy.

Carol Keiser owns and operates cattle feeding operations in Kansas, Nebraska and Illinois. She volunteers as a Truth About Trade & Technology board member (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Bill Gates made a startling observation at the World Economic Forum last month. He pointed out that in Africa, where I live, 70 percent of adults farm. And yet my continent imports food from the United States, where less than 2 percent of the population farms.

There is of course nothing wrong with international trade: Africans and Americans should buy goods and services from each other as much as they like. Sadly, though, African farmers don’t grow enough food to feed the people on our own continent.

As a farmer in Ghana, I see this problem every day. Farmers struggle with everything from the unpredictability of the weather to the poor condition of the roads. Women are critical to food production, but in many places we lack basic rights to land and can’t access loan / credit facilities and agricultural extension services.

Perhaps most important, we need access to modern technology. The 21st-century tools that farmers in the United States and many other advanced countries take for granted remain beyond our reach.

My family owns a 30 acre farm at Aboa, a rural community in the Eastern Region of Ghana. We grow cassava and yam in one section. The rest of our land is forested, and we use it as a wild provision for fruits, snails, and mushrooms.

We know what we’re missing because we’ve seen the gains achieved by a relative of mine. He was planting maize on a small scale. When I returned from a program sponsored by Africa Lead and the World Food Prize, I introduced him to several new ideas involving better seeds, machinery, and fertilizer. He went from harvesting three to six bags of maize per acre to 30 bags per acre.

These are some of the fundamental tools of the Green Revolution. What we really need, however, is to become a part of the “Gene Revolution,” the global movement toward the adoption of biotechnology in agriculture. Last week, the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) released its annual report and found that roughly 18 million farmers—90 percent of them smallholders like me—planted a record 181 million hectares of GM crops last year.

This is a welcome news, but also bittersweet: From my farm in Ghana, it looks like Africa is falling behind once more. Farmers in much of the rest of the world increased their reliance on biotech crops in 2014.

Only in Burkina Faso, South Africa, and Sudan do farmers enjoy access to these crops, as they have for some time. The rest of us have not fully adopted the innovation of improving agriculture due to limited extensive education on its importance.

We may yet benefit. Ghana and six other African countries have conducted field trials of GM crops, including rice, maize, wheat, sorghum, bananas, cassava, and sweet potato, according to the ISAAA. Until they are commercialized, however, farmers like me and the rural women that I work with will remain dependent upon traditional methods and technologies to produce the food our growing continent needs.

Women have the most to gain. Although men dominate work in cash crops, we produce about 70 percent of our food crops. We also add more value to the crops we grow: 80 percent of us turn produce into semi-finished or finished products. We turn fresh cassava into kokonte, dough, and gari, for instance.

What’s more, we practice sustainable agriculture, using every part of the crop possible. We dry the peels from cassava and other roots and tubers for livestock feed. Nothing goes to waste.

We would do better for ourselves and our customers if we could grow more and better cassava—and the best opportunities for improvement come from advanced technology. GM plays an important role in improved agriculture production. Providing farmer education, including the provision of reliable extensions officers, are critical tools needed given that the majority of small holder farmers in Africa are illiterate or semi-illiterate. To prevent people from living in hunger, we need all of these tools.

Scientists are already trying to develop varieties of cassava that resist diseases and pests, as well as types that are biofortified to enhance nutrition. We must cheer their efforts in every way, and not seek to block them through political interference.

I like to farm, and to contribute to the food security of Ghana. Every day, I see the effectiveness of rural women farmers who collaborate, empower each other, and advocate in their own communities and with policy makers. I look forward to a day when Africans can feed themselves—and have so much food that Bill Gates reverses his statement about farmers in his land and mine.

Lydia Sasu was born into a farming family in Aboa, Ghana. Committed to improving the lives of rural women farmers, Lydia serves as the Executive Director of the Development Action Association (DAA) and is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

For many Americans and Europeans, Africa is the charity continent—a hopeless land of starving people who need handouts merely to survive.

Sometimes it seems as though our main imports from the West are pity and sympathy.

As a farmer in Kenya, I’ve always been struck by this odd state of affairs. I don’t see Africa as a basket case of despair, but rather as a breadbasket of opportunity. Our climate is warm and our soil is fertile. We ought to grow more than enough food to feed ourselves.

Yet we don’t. Our food production falls even as our population grows. Millions of African children, women and men suffer from hunger and malnourishment while African farmers continue to lag behind in the use of strategies to break this pattern of food insecurity and bring about a “green revolution” for Africa.

What we need more than anything else is access to the 21st-century science and technology solutions that farmers in many other countries take for granted.

I’m a small-scale farmer, just like 80 percent of Kenya’s farmers. I grow maize on five of my 25 acres. Another three acres are improved pasture. Vegetables, trees, free-range grazing, livestock barns, and homestead occupy the rest of my farm.

I enjoy farming because it contributes to my family’s nutritional and economic security. Throughout the year, we can take carbohydrates, proteins, and vitamins from our own land. We also sell a portion of our crops as well as milk and eggs from our livestock.

This self-sufficiency provides me with a sense of satisfaction that few other professions can match.

It’s more than personal, though. My farm also contributes to our country’s food security. The people in our village and region need what we grow. So do people I’ll never meet. Because of the East African Community’s latest regional integration protocol, my food can wind up in Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda.

Yet we’re also beset with challenges. We lack an infrastructure of roads and rails that any truly vibrant trading economy depends upon. Storage facilities are inadequate. Farming equipment is either non-existent, inadequate or is too old.

Our farming problems are a manifestation of climate change. We cannot plant on time as the rains are no longer predictable and the ever-present attacks by crop pests and diseases, coupled with unpredictable climate lead to regular post-harvest losses. The majority of our farmers are poorly educated. Extension services are poorly spread or non-existent, hence failure to disseminate new knowledge. Taxes are too high.

To borrow a recent statement by Dr. Speciosa Kazibwe, past Vice-President of Uganda and former Minister of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries, Africa’s problems emanate from the continent’s huge diversity and leadership problems. African governments have failed to recognize and embrace science and technology. They have failed to invest at least 10% of their national budgets in agriculture as per the Maputo Declaration of Agriculture and Food Security made in 2003!

Chief among our problems is a failure to embrace biotechnology. For farmers in many countries, the genetic modification of seeds has become a conventional part of agriculture. In recent years, they’ve seen record-setting harvests.

Some people seem to think that African farmers are just too slow to adopt new technologies. This is not true. In the African countries that have permitted biotechnology in agriculture—Burkina Faso and South Africa, for instance—farmers have rushed to take up these new tools.

The problem lies elsewhere, with governments that have resisted approving safe and healthy crops. They have taken too much direction from Europe and its unthinking opposition to GM crops, and their reluctance has seeped down to the level of research institutions and agricultural extension workers. They have not promoted these technologies the way they could.

In Kenya, we suffer from a ban on the importation of GM foods since November 2012—an irrational prohibition grounded in scientific illiteracy. We continue to host field trials of GM cotton, cassava, sweet potatoes, sorghum and maize (corn), but our government has given no indication of when it will permit the commercial dissemination of GM seeds. For years, we’ve waited, and there’s no telling when our wait will end.

Farmers like me would love to use this technology, if only it were permitted. Many of us have met farmers from other countries who have used it. Even those who don’t share these personal connections have heard the stories. They are all interested in this technology. Once they see it with their own eyes—weed-free fields and crops that resist the infestation of pests—they’ll want it for themselves.

Farming everywhere involves challenges, from daily weather patterns to long-term climate change. Yet Africa’s refusal to embrace new technology is a challenge that we have imposed upon ourselves. It is an additional burden, heaped upon all of the ones that we already confront.

I refuse to lose hope: One day, farmers across Africa will enjoy the best seeds the world can offer. Before that happens, however, we must stand up and demand them.

Africa doesn’t need more handouts. It needs a hand up, so that it can help itself rather than rely on the generosity of others.

Gilbert Arap Bor grows maize, vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, Kenya and teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus. Mr. Bor is the 2011 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

I remember watching Winston Churchill’s funeral on television. It happened 50 years ago this month—he died on January 24, 1965—and I was a boy of 12.

I have a vivid memory of his funeral casket, draped in the Union Jack, as it proceeded through London. I knew only a little about Churchill at the time, but I could tell from the pomp and circumstance that he was a great man.

Since then, I’ve become a student of Churchill. I’ve learned that Churchill was a brilliant statesman, a remarkable wordsmith, and a hero of freedom. I’ve read books by him (the four-volume “History of the English-Speaking Peoples,” for instance) as well as books about him (my favorite is “The Last Lion,” a three-volume biography by William Manchester and Paul Reid).

The 50th anniversary of his death is now serving as the occasion for countless commemorations, from museum exhibitions to academic conferences.

In my opinion, the best thing we can do to honor his memory, however, is to finish the ongoing trade talks between the United States and the European Union and approve a robust free-trade agreement that links our North Atlantic economies.

That’s because Churchill was a champion of free trade. We don’t always think of him this way. When we consider Churchill, our minds turn to the Second World War, the great speeches, and the stub of a cigar projecting from a cherubic face.

Yet as Boris Johnson reminds us in “The Churchill Factor,” a new biography, Churchill “was a free trader more or less without deviation.”

As a young parliamentarian, the future prime minister cared about free trade so much that he even switched political parties, quitting the Tories to become a Liberal. He “crossed the floor,” as they call it in Great Britain.

This was in 1904, long before Churchill became a household name. The Tories had abandoned their traditional support for free trade and embraced protectionism. Eventually, Churchill crossed back, rejoining to the Tories in 1924—but only after his former colleagues decided to favor free trade once more.

As a politician, Churchill knew how to compromise, but he was also a man of principle, especially on the issue of free trade. He didn’t leave his political parties as much as his political parties left him.

In a 1905 essay, “Why I am a Free Trader,” Churchill explained his views.

Free trade, he said, improves economic prosperity and abundant food: “We say that every Englishman shall have the right to buy whatever he wants, wherever he chooses, at his own good pleasure, without restriction or discouragement from the State,” he wrote. “The harvests of the world are at our disposal, and by the system which averages climactic risks we secure not merely a low, but a fairly stable price.”

Free trade also encourages peace: “The dangers which threaten the tranquility of the modern world come not from those Powers that become interdependent upon others; they come from those Powers which are more or less detached, which stand more or less aloof from the general intercourse of mankind.”

Finally, free trade guards against political corruption. Under protectionism, Churchill warned, “Every dirty little monopolist in the island will have his own ‘society’ to push his special trade; and for each and all the watchword will be, ‘Scratch my back,’ and the countersign, ‘I’ll scratch yours.’”

“To say that Protection means greater development of wealth is unspeakable humbug,” he added.

As the trade diplomats of the United States and Europe work toward a big trade pact called the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), they should recall what Churchill said, over and over again: Trade agreements promote prosperity, peace, and clean politics.

Trade talks can be tough, dragging on for years, seemingly without end, especially as they take up hard subjects, such as agriculture.

Yet Churchill taught us how to confront difficult challenges: Never surrender.

Perhaps the most fitting way to exalt Churchill half a century since his passing is not just to approve TTIP, but to change its name from an alphabet-soup title that only a bureaucrat could love into something more inspirational.

Let’s call it the “Churchill Accords,” and let’s get it done this year.

Mark Wagoner is a third generation farmer in Walla Walla County, Washington where they raise alfalfa seed. Mark volunteers as a Board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

“We need to export more of our goods,” stated President Obama in his State of the Union speech in 2010. “So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years.”

Now that five years have passed, we can compare the President’s rhetoric to his results. Unfortunately, it looks like the rhetoric won.

In 2009—the last full year of statistics before President Obama made his 2010 pledge—the United States exported $1.58 trillion in goods and services, according to the Department of Commerce. Meeting the President’s five-year goal would require exports of $3.16 trillion in 2014.

It’s too soon to know precisely how much the United States exported last year, but we can say one thing with absolute certainty: The numbers won’t come close to President Obama’s target.

In 2013, the United States exported $2.27 billion in goods and services. Through November of 2014, exports were up about 3 percent from a year earlier. So if prevailing trends continued through December, total exports for 2014 will rise to about $2.34 trillion.

That’s a lot of exports. Yet it’s also only 74 percent of the way toward Obama’s goal.

Let’s be clear about one thing. Even the most partisan Congressman or citizen should take no pleasure from this missed goal. Exports are important to us all. They boost economic prosperity here at home, maintaining and creating jobs in our factories and on our farms.

When President Obama announced his goal five years ago, my first thought was to cheer him on and wonder what we could do to help.

At the time, the President offered an idea. “To meet this goal,” he said in 2010, “we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports.”

Today, the National Export Initiative has a spiffy website, with lots of information about how exports help our economy. Yet a close look at its talking points reveals that most of the growth in exports over the last five years has been a function of ordinary business cycles, rather than anything politicians in Washington or elsewhere have done.

The administration hasn’t done much in the one area where it has the most potential to push exports: negotiating free-trade agreements. President Obama has yet to conclude a single free-trade accord on his own. He deserves credit for working with Congress to finalize deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, but those talks were negotiated under President Bush.

The good news is that President Obama may be on the verge of a major achievement. For years, American trade diplomats have worked on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential accord with 11 other nations around the Pacific Rim, including Australia, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia – a number of which I have been able to personally visit. TPP could generate more than $120 billion in American exports per year by 2025, according to an estimate from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

The completion of TPP should be one of Washington’s most important objectives this year. Both Democrats and Republicans have their parts to play. President Obama must encourage trade diplomats to get it done. Congress ought to approve Trade Promotion Authority, a legislative tool that would allow the White House to submit a finished agreement to Congress for an up-or-down vote.

Although TPP would be a noteworthy achievement, Obama would really burnish his legacy if he were to follow the successful completion of TPP by finishing a robust trade agreement with the European Union. These negotiations are already underway, known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. I’m hopeful that a successful agreement would provide consumers in the EU the option to buy the beef and wheat that I grow on our farm.

It’s too bad that exports haven’t doubled over the last five years. During next week’s State of the Union address, we’ll probably hear more talk about the benefits of trade.

What we really need from President Obama is a promise he can keep—a commitment to lift U.S. exports with free-trade agreements.

Hope Pjesky and her family are farmers / ranchers in northern Oklahoma where they raise cattle and wheat. Hope volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

The holiday season has ended, as we marked the passing of the twelfth day of Christmas. In Japan, people are already making their wish lists for 2015.

They want butter.

That’s because for the Japanese, 2014 was the year of the great Christmas butter shortage.

Their problem is our opportunity—but only if Washington makes a bipartisan New Year’s resolution to actively pursue and complete the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade agreement in the months ahead.

On the face of it, you wouldn’t think that the Japanese care about Christmas or butter. Only a tiny fraction of the Japanese population is Christian (most are Shinto or Buddhist) and butter is not a diet main-stay (in a diet dominated by rice and seafood).

Many Japanese nevertheless celebrate Christmas. For them, it’s a minor date on the calendar. NPR recently likened it to the U.S. Valentine’s Day. The Japanese honor it by baking and eating round sponge cakes covered with whipped cream and topped by strawberries.

They’re named “Christmas cakes,” and the recipe calls for lots of butter.

Unfortunately, Japan nearly ran out of butter this year.

The experts blamed it on a hot summer that led to low milk production. They also pointed to a structural problem in Japan’s agricultural economy: Since 1985, the number of households that engage in dairy farming has dropped from more than 80,000 to fewer than 20,000. Dairy cows have fallen from more than 2 million to fewer than 1.5 million.

To complicate matters, Japan’s dairy farmers are protected by high tariffs, whose purpose is to block or at least impede imports from foreign competitors. So when domestic production lags, international trade can’t make up the difference. For ordinary consumers, butter becomes prohibitively expensive.

This is a shame, especially when dairy farmers in the United States are ready and willing to sell butter to Japan.

In the future, perhaps they’ll have the chance—but only if President Obama and Congress get behind a bipartisan trade agenda that includes the TPP, a round of negotiations that would improve links between the United States, Japan, and other Pacific Rim nations.

The Peterson Institute says that TPP holds the potential to generate $120 billion in new U.S. exports per year by 2025. Some sliver of that could include butter to Japan, but mostly it would involve machinery, plastics, and services as well as the traditional farm commodities of corn, soybeans, pork, beef, and fresh fruit.

This pact would benefit Americans everywhere, creating jobs in factories and on farms.

Success will require Democrats and Republicans to set aside their differences and oppose the pleadings of special-interest groups.

I’m hopeful it will happen: In a speech last month, President Obama announced a willingness to buck his fellow Democrats. “Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo that is more damaging to American workers,” he said. “There are folks in my own party and in my own constituency … [who] are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to opposing TPP, and I’m going to make that argument.”

Congressional Republicans can do their part by passing Trade Promotion Authority, which would allow the White House to finish TPP talks and submit an agreement to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Just as the Christmas cakes of Japan require butter, successful trade agreements need this legislative tool.

If the new GOP leadership in Congress truly wants to find common ground with President Obama, this would be an excellent way to start.

At one point, trade diplomats signaled that they had hoped to complete TPP in 2014. As anyone familiar with trade talks knows, however, negotiations have a way of dragging on—especially as they become mired in difficult conversations about agriculture and other sensitive topics.

Yet the advantages of TPP are too great to ignore. Maybe we should set an informal goal of having TPP before next Christmas. For the Japanese, it could mean not having to worry about butter for their cakes. For Americans, it would provide a permanent boost to the economy—a Christmas gift that keeps on giving.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

In 2014, the farmers of Truth about Trade & Technology celebrated the centennial year of Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution. We also marked the 15th anniversary of our organization, started in 1999 after global trade talks in Seattle sparked a riotous protest.

“We resolved to fight back,” recalled Tim Burrack in a column last month. “We decided to protest the protests. Instead of smashing store windows, however, we committed ourselves to reasoned debate and sound argument.”

And that’s how we spent 2014: Spreading the truth about free trade and agriculture technology.

In January, Reg Clause reflected on a trip to Singapore and the lessons he learned there about international commerce: “Experience teaches that free trade is a tool for helping people everywhere. It lifts people out of poverty in the developing world. Trade lowers prices and expands consumer choice in developed countries like the United States.”

The next month, our chairman Bill Horan urged Present Obama to push for new trade agreements and pressed Congress to approve Trade Promotion Authority (TPA): “America’s farmers are ready and willing to keep on planting, harvesting, and selling, especially as new technologies help us grow more food on less land. To take full advantage of this prospect, however, we’ll need political leaders who are committed to maintaining existing markets and opening new ones.”

Export markets matter to farmers, and Mark Wagoner called on our federal leaders to finish the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an ambitious trade agreement with the nations of the Pacific Rim, in April: “Foreign trade is a key to our profitability, especially for those of us who farm. We export huge amounts of apples, cherries, pears, wheat, and wine to Asia. Without these exports, many of us wouldn’t be able to farm at all.”

In November, John Rigolizzo Jr. talked about how trade can influence political legacies: “Right now President Obama risks being remembered as a man who presided over a slow-growth economy. To be sure, he has faced enormous challenges, especially early in his tenure. Today, however, global trade presents him with enormous opportunities. He must do everything in his power to seize them.”

Just as free trade represents opportunity, so does technology—and in particular, the technology of genetic modification. It has allowed farmers around the world to grow more food on less land than ever before. Yet it has come under unprecedented attack.

In February, Ted Sheely responded to the restaurant chain Chipotle’s sponsorship of a television show that savaged modern farming: “What kind of values would inspire a corporation to wage a smear campaign against America’s farmers?”

Much of the threat came through the subversive attack of labeling—the idea that food with GM ingredients should carry special warning labels, even though they’re safe and healthy. In October, as voters in Colorado and Oregon prepared to consider ballot initiatives, Terry Wanzek weighed in: “This is what bothers me most about all of these efforts to ban genetically modified ingredients or slap provocative warning labels on certain products: They’re attempts by other people to dictate my decisions through a mix of mandate and fear.”

Earlier in the year, Carol Keiser wondered what would happen if every state created different labeling standards: “Should food labels look different everywhere we go? Of course not. Americans need easy to read and understand standards that reveal pertinent information, no matter where we buy our food.”

In November, right after Colorado and Oregon had the good sense to reject the proposals to mandate labels for GM food, Bill Horan reviewed the recent history of labeling initiatives: “This marks the fourth time in the last two years that voters have turned back proposals to require special labels for food with GM contents.”

Then he critiqued the process: “The ballot referendum can be a useful tool of democracy, but it’s a poor way to go about building a regulatory system to govern something as complicated and important as food,” he wrote. “It’s time to give these ballot proposals an expiration date of right now.”

Finally, he proposed a solution: “A bipartisan coalition already supports the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, introduced earlier this year by Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Kansas Republican. It would permit food companies to label their products voluntarily, but also prevent states from creating a patchwork of complex rules involving mandatory warning labels for food with GM ingredients.”

The Christmas season is a time to count our blessings—and one of our blessings is the abundant food we enjoy because of trade and technology.

In April, Daniel Kelley reflected on how much technology has improved during his career: “When I started to farm more than four decades ago, we hoped that each acre of corn would yield close to 150 bushels but we often topped out at 135. The most productive fields—the record-setting ones on other farms—might inch past 200 bushels per acre. Today, anything less than 200 bushels per acre is a disappointment.”

In July, Hope Pjesky wrote about Dr. Sanjaya Rajaram, the winner of this year’s World Food Prize. “Some nights it’s stressful enough to put dinner on the table for my family. Imagine being responsible for feeding millions of people,” he wrote. “His wheat varieties have boosted global wheat production by 200 million tons.”

Unfortunately, some farmers can’t use the best technologies, as Nyashi Mudukuti, a member of TATT’s Global Farmer Network, explained in October. “I raise sorghum and maize on our family farm on less than three hectares in rural Zimbabwe—and although we live in the 21st century, we use almost exactly the same 20th-century farming methods as our grandparents,” she wrote. “The solution is to let Africa’s farmers—and especially its women farmers—gain the access to the technologies that millions of others take for granted. … I desperately wish we could join in and grow these crops in Zimbabwe. They’re an essential part of meeting our food-security needs.

The world needs to hear voices like Mudukuti’s, as British farmer Ian Pigott wrote in October, upon his receipt of the Dean Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award, named for TATT’s founding chairman. “When Norman Borlaug died five years ago, he uttered his famous last words: ‘Take it to the farmers,’” he wrote. “That’s good advice, but I’ve spent a lot of my time doing the opposite: Taking what farmers know and bringing it to the broader public.”

That’s what we tried to do all year, and what we’ll keep on doing in 2015.

A startling exchange on Capitol Hill last week ought to end the debate over whether genetically modified foods should carry special warning labels.

It came near the conclusion of a three-hour hearing on December 10. The members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health heard a range of views on a hotly contested political question—the subject of ballot initiatives in two states last month as well as proposed legislation in Congress.

The hearing room was so packed with guests that the chairman, Rep. Joe Pitts of Pennsylvania, began the session by saying he wished that all of the subcommittee’s meetings would generate so much interest from the public.

Three hours later, with time running out, Rep. Mike Pompeo asked a direct question of a five-witness panel.

“I’m going to try to get some yes-or-no answers,” said the Kansas Republican. He quoted an official from the Food and Drug Administration who had stated earlier in the day that GM foods “are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”

Then he looked up at the panelists. “We’ll start on my left,” he said. “Tell me if you agree—yes or no—with that statement.”

One by one, each of the five panelists replied: “Yes.”

“We have total unanimity,” said Pompeo. “That’s fantastic.”

Indeed it was, because those unanimous responses have the potential to halt an unhelpful controversy.

Three of the “yes” responses to Pompeo’s question were foreseeable, as they came from a scientist, a farmer, and a food-industry spokesman. Alison Van Eenennaam of the University of California, Stacey Forshee of the Kansas Farm Bureau, and Tom Dempsey of the Snack Food Association know the truth about GM food, from their own research and experience: They’re safe and healthy.

The other two panelists, however, are both strong advocates of labeling GM foods. They had every motive to respond in the negative.

Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group is a professional activist whose organization claims—with wild implausibility—that organic food “can feed the world” (according to a recent headline on its website).

Kate Webb is assistant majority leader of Vermont’s House of Representatives. Last year, her state passed a GM-labeling law whose implementation threatens to begin the process of creating a confusing patchwork of state-by-state regulations.

Confronted by Pompeo’s question, both Faber and Webb nevertheless replied in the affirmative. They agreed that GM foods “are as safe as their conventional counterparts.”

Their responses beg an obvious question: If GM foods are no different from non-GM foods, then why should foods that contain GM ingredients carry special labels?

They have no answer for this, or at least no good ones—and their lack of answers exposes the fundamental weakness of the political case for labels. Once we scratch beneath the slogans, we discover no substantive reason to slap warning stickers on GM food.

As Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat of California, commented during the hearing: GM food labels could be “inherently misleading” to consumers.

Consumers would suffer in other ways, too: Studies show that GM food labels would push up food prices by hundreds of dollars per year.

“If the labeling could result in higher food prices, then maybe that’s not a risk we want to take,” said Rep. Frank Pallone, a Democrat of New Jersey.

This is why voters in Colorado and Oregon rejected ballot proposals on Election Day to mandate labels for GM food. They examined the issue and decided that the enormous costs of labeling far outweighed the nonexistent benefits.

Faber and Webb deserve credit for answering Pompeo’s question with honesty and accuracy. Now they should follow their words with action and work with others across the food supply spectrum to support federal legislation that affirms food companies have the right to label their products voluntarily and prevent states from imposing complicated rules about GM food labeling.

The intellectual and scientific debate over GM food is over. The new Congress now should end the political debate.

John Rigolizzo, Jr. is a fifth generation farmer, raising fresh vegetables and field corn in southern New Jersey. The family farm produces for retail and wholesale markets. John is a volunteer board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

The public protests over recent grand-jury decisions have brought to mind an event whose 15th anniversary has just passed: the so-called “Battle in Seattle” over global trade.

Thankfully, we haven’t seen anything in recent days that approaches the troubles in Seattle at a World Trade Organization meeting where tens of thousands of protestors let loose their fury. To make an ideological point about trade policy, they inflicted millions of dollars in property damage on local businesses. The mayor declared a state of emergency.

I remember watching the riots unfold on television and reading about them in the newspaper. The hooliganism astonished me. Although I’ve always known that some people oppose the free flow of goods and services across borders, I didn’t know that their views could explode into such unthinking rage.

Americans have a constitutional right to complain: The First Amendment protects our ability to speak, petition, and assemble. Yet we must always guard against the possibility of passion boiling into violence.

The mayhem of Seattle served as a wake-up call for farmers. We can’t afford to let the thugs prevail. Our livelihoods – and those of most business - depend on foreign markets. The typical American corn farmer like me exports about one-third of his crop to people in other countries.

So we resolved to fight back. In a sense, we decided to protest the protests. Instead of smashing store windows, however, we committed ourselves to reasoned debate and sound argument.

Several friends and I started a nonprofit group called Truth about Trade. Soon after, we realized that many of the people who want to deny us the ability to sell what we grow also seek to deny us modern tools of agriculture that help us grow as much as we do in a manner that is sustainable. They’ve gone from rioting in the cities to terrorizing the countryside, as they attack field trials everywhere from Italy to the Philippines. So we expanded our vision and lengthened our name to Truth About Trade & Technology.

We’ve spent the last 15 years calling for new free-trade agreements and better access to agricultural technology, in the United States and around the world. We write weekly columns, publish economic research, speak to groups in the U.S. and around the world whenever invited and mobilize a global network of farmers who share our goals. We seek to engage hearts and minds rather than play to fear and ignorance.

We’ve certainly seen progress, as trade has expanded to every corner of the planet. Just as farmers in Iowa want to sell soybeans to China, growers in Burkina Faso hope to harvest the cotton that will make clothes for Europeans. Even so, we must do more: President Obama should push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, allowing us to improve our trade around the Pacific Rim. Congress can give him a boost by approving Trade Promotion Authority, which will help our trade diplomats as they negotiate.

Some opinion polls suggest that American attitudes toward trade have remained stable over the last generation. Earlier this year, Gallup found that 54 percent of Americans see trade as an “opportunity for growth” and 38 percent see it as a “threat to the economy.” Twenty years ago, Gallup’s numbers were almost exactly the same: 53 percent and 38 percent.

I’d describe this as mostly favorable, but leavened by a large dose of skepticism—and evidence that we need to keep making our case.

On technology, we encourage governments everywhere to adopt regulatory policies that support farmers and food production, rather than smother innovation and raise prices on consumers. Just last month, we saw good news in Colorado and Oregon, where voters rejected unwise food-labeling initiatives. The result in Colorado was decisive, but in Oregon it was disturbingly close. A recount concluded only last week.

The experience provided more proof that we still have plenty of work to do.

In a democratic society, the debates never cease: trade and technology always have enemies, so they’ll always need champions. As much as I hope we never see another “Battle in Seattle,” I know that plenty of battles lie ahead.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

As a farmer in India, I am hopeful my country has reached a turning point and will finally embrace 21st-century farming, setting the stage for a second Green Revolution that is the world’s only hope for feeding 9 billion people by 2050.

New Delhi’s recent decision to permit field trials for genetically modified brinjal and mustard represents an essential step forward—a belated decision and limited in scope, but also a move that puts India on a course for genuine progress in agriculture.

In Tamil Nadu, a state that occupies the southern tip of India where I grow rice, sugar cane, cotton and pulses on my farm, I see the significance of this struggle every day. The latest UN projections say that my country will pass China’s population within the next 15 years. If we don’t improve our food security by then, we’ll enter a period of unprecedented misery.

The good news is that much of the world recognizes the magnitude of the challenge, in India and elsewhere. In October, I participated in the World Economic Forum’s New Vision for Agriculture meeting, which convened about 120 stakeholders, including farmers, in an effort to develop strategies for sustainable agricultural growth. We discussed a wide range of subjects including the importance of technology innovation, empowerment of women and smallholder farmers, Government policies, financial services, and risk management.

Although GM crops were not a major part of our conversations, the farmers in attendance made clear that we have positive views about these crops and believe biotechnology is an indispensible part of food security. Those of us who live in the developing world would like to enjoy the same access to technology that farmers in the United States and many other countries take for granted.

In too many instances, however, our governments are still catching up with our aspirations.

Years ago, India accepted biotechnology in agriculture when it commercialized GM cotton. At that moment, it looked like we might become full participants in a new wave of progress. Today, more than 95 percent of India’s cotton is genetically modified to resist insect pests.

This was a welcome start, but small in scale. Only a tiny minority of India’s farmers grows cotton. The rest of us produce other crops, and are yet to taste the benefit of GM crops as we try to feed a nation of more than 1.2 billion people.

Yet as farmers in North and South America pressed forward with GM corn, soybeans, and other crops, New Delhi hit the brakes. Instead of working to introduce GM brinjal—an important vegetable crop in India, known in the Unites States as eggplant—our government turned away from new forms of biotechnology.

In doing so, public officials made regulatory decisions based not on provable science, but on political science. They should have relied on reliable research from respected authorities. Instead, they responded to lies and propaganda from ideological activists.

The election of Narendra Modi as India’s prime minister earlier this year, however, appears to have changed everything. Modi’s environmental ministry, led by Prakash Javadekar, has chosen to emphasize science and technology.

India now will test some 30 varieties of GM brinjal and mustard, a decision consistent with PM Modi’s development agenda. If sound science truly animates our policies, farmers like me almost certainly will have access to better crops soon.

I’m looking forward to what happens next. I have grown brinjal in a small area, but gave up because I couldn’t keep away the pests and remain economically competitive. Many farmers in India will be benefited, if and when GM brinjal becomes available.

I plan to do everything in my power to help biotechnology take root in my country: We must make sure that successful field trials lead to commercialization, and see that our research expands to include additional crops. Today, the hard work of our Indian scientists who have developed lots of GM crops with desirable traits, including maize, rice, okra, cabbage and cauliflower, are confined to a lab while they wait for clearance from the government. This must change. It is important that these improved crops are made available to India’s farmers.

The World Economic Forum and other international organizations have roles to play as well. They can lend moral support to India’s innovators, who must continue to resist pressure from political protestors. They can also try to shape the views of opinion leaders, especially in Europe, where hostility to GM crops has encouraged India and other developing countries to question the value of biotechnology.

Most of all, however, they can encourage farmers like me to join a new Green Revolution that rises to the mighty challenge of feeding a hungry world.

Mr. V Ravichandran owns a 60 acre farm at Poongulam Village in Tamil Nadu, India where he grows rice, sugar cane, cotton and pulses (small grains). Mr. Ravichandran is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network, 2013 recipient of the Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award and serves on the WEF New Vision for Agriculture Transformational Leaders Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

When President Abraham Lincoln made Thanksgiving a national holiday in 1863, his proclamation spoke of “the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies.” The distractions of a civil war, he added, “have not arrested the plow.”

Neither has time. If anything, it has spurred the plow to do more work than Honest Abe could have imagined possible, even with many fewer plowers.

In President Lincoln’s day, roughly half of all Americans lived and worked on farms. Today, however, farmers make up just a tiny fraction of our workforce with each U.S. farmer producing enough to feed another 155 people.

This is a triumph of efficiency—and as we prepare to celebrate this year’s holiday with family and friends, we should give thanks for the amazing productivity of our farms and the abundant food they produce. At the same time, we should recognize that our incredible success has caused many of us to take our bounty for granted, posing unique challenges that would have been incomprehensible just a generation or two ago.

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that almost 320 million people live in the United States right now. Yet only 2 percent reside on farms. Less than 1 percent claim farming as a job, and less than half a percent call farming their principal occupation.

In other words, if you gather 200 Americans at random, only one of them will be a full-time farmer. The number of people who play the farming-simulation game Farmville is larger than the number of people who actually farm in the United States.

Despite this, our farmers produce a mind-boggling bounty. Earlier this year, we harvested America’s largest corn crop ever. We export huge amounts of it overseas, and inexpensive food still overflows from the shelves of our grocery stories.

This is an incredible feat, the result of hard work and technological innovation. Almost everything about farming is better than it was for our ancestors, from our equipment to our seeds. We’re growing more food on less land than ever before.

I’ve farmed my whole life and can’t imagine wanting to do something else for a living. And yet the farming life isn’t for everyone—and it’s good that so many people can pursue other vocations. Fewer people forced into farming out of necessity means more people moving into medicine, teaching, and computer programming by choice.

Lincoln would have appreciated this social and economic development. He grew up on a farm but became determined to pursue a different career. The rest, as they say, is history.

Yet there’s a downside to this positive trend: Ordinary people know less about farming and food production than ever before, making us more vulnerable to rumors, fads, and disinformation. Practices ranging from the use of crop-protection tools to the production of finely textured beef arouse bogus controversies, especially when stoked by people who refuse to understand science or agriculture.

Some have ideological agendas and others want to boost television ratings—but whatever their motives, they have an unprecedented opportunity to exploit agricultural illiteracy.

Their mischief can lead to bad public policies. Earlier this month, for instance, voters in Colorado and Oregon considered ballot initiatives to require warning labels on food with genetically modified ingredients. Coloradoans wisely rejected the idea by a two-to-one margin, but Oregonians were almost evenly split—a tiny majority opposed the labels, but a recount is underway.

If more people farmed, more voters would know the value of agricultural biotechnology from firsthand experience—and the campaigns against it would be properly seen as a fringe movement.

I don’t want to go back to the way things were in the 19th century. I prefer tractors to plows. Yet sometimes I wish more people knew today what people knew back then.

So this Thanksgiving, I’ll give thanks for living in a country where the farmers produce so much food that most people don’t have to worry about food production—but also hope that in the year ahead, we’ll all gain a better understanding of what farmers do and why our food is safe and healthy.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Nobody ever wins a trade war, but the protectionists always want to try.

Their latest act of stubbornness will force American consumers to pay more at the grocery store and make it harder for American farmers to export what they grow—unless the federal government at last corrects a mistake that it keeps on making.

For the third time in three years, the World Trade Organization has ruled against country-of-origin labeling (COOL). It said that although the United States may permit these labels in principle, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s rules in practice have unfairly blocked Canadian and Mexican products from the American market.

This is no surprise: Ranchers like me have been saying as much for years. Although we support voluntary labeling, we oppose labels that create artificial barriers to trade.

The problem—if you insist on calling it one—is that the North American meat industry has become incredibly efficient. We’re moving cattle all the time, from their birthplaces to the pastures where they grow to the feedlots where they fatten. This benefits consumers because it allows for specialization and economies of scale.

Sometimes cattle cross our borders with Canada or Mexico. A calf may be born in Montana, for example, then raised in Alberta, and finally packed in Nebraska.

When this happens, it’s all about efficiency. Intense competition helps keep prices in check for consumers.

In 2008, Congress mandated country-of-origin labels. The implementation proved difficult, however, and a set of complicated rules forced producers to focus on paperwork rather than food. Suddenly, we had to segregate herds and build special warehousing capacities, all at great cost.

None of this had anything to do with the health and safety of people or animals—and everything to do with obstructing trade. Consumers never demanded the rules, and few of them have bothered to squint at the tiny print on packages that explain where the livestock that produced their meat was born, raised, and slaughtered.

The real agenda of COOL was protectionism: To drive up the costs of trading across borders. That’s why Canada and Mexico complained to the WTO about unfair trade practices

I’m a patriotic American, but I have to say this—Canada and Mexico were in the right and we were in the wrong.

The WTO agreed with Canada and Mexico in 2011. The United States appealed the ruling—and lost again in 2012. So USDA revised its labeling requirements in 2013, but made them even worse. Canada and Mexico continued to object. Last week, the WTO favored them once more.

Three strikes and you’re out.

If Washington refuses to reform, Canada and Mexico will retaliate with a series of punitive tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of goods produced or grown in the U.S., putting jobs at risk. They could sanction everything from cheese produced in Colorado to auto parts made in Michigan to potatoes grown in Oregon, with the purpose of delivering big blows to American exports. And they can do this with the full blessing of the WTO.

The solution is simple: The White House should abandon any plans it may have to appeal the ruling, which would merely put off an inevitable reckoning and continue to embarrass us on the international stage. Meanwhile, Congress should repeal the law that got us in this mess in the first place. However hard it might be to accomplish politically, upholding and honoring our trade obligations is the right thing to do. At a minimum, Congress should pass legislation that would authorize and direct U.S. Secretary of Ag Vilsack to rescind the pieces of COOL that are not compliant with our WTO trade obligations.

The shame of this dispute is that the WTO has been a tremendous ally to U.S. commerce in general and to American agriculture in particular. In other rulings, it has opened foreign markets to our exports, allowing us to sell goods and services to customers in other countries. An important case in point is our conflict with the European Union: The WTO has helped us sell American products to Europeans, despite the best efforts of protectionists to exclude them.

In the field of global trade, the United States should set an example for other nations to follow, not play the part of free-trade hypocrite. This is especially true as the Obama administration tries to strike ambitious trade agreements with Europe and the Pacific Rim nations.

The alternative to righteous support of free trade is a never-ending trade war that American consumers and exporters lose, over and over again.

Hope Pjesky and her family are farmers / ranchers in northern Oklahoma where they raise cattle and wheat. Hope volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

When I was a young, beginning farmer, an older farmer shared a bit of wisdom. “For every 1 percent increase in the wholesale food market, farmers see their revenue grow by 5 percent.”

Across the years, I’ve learned that if this isn’t exactly an iron law of agriculture, it’s at least a good rule of thumb. I’ve seen it come true, over and over again.

Global trade is no exception. When demand for food around the world grows, it easily converts to an appreciable increase in revenue for the farmers who produce that food, the individuals and businesses that process it, the grocers that sell it and on down the line.

This is just one of the reasons I believe President Obama must make trade expansion a top priority of his final two years in the White House. Instead of thinking about controversial executive orders on issues like immigration, he should work with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to hammer out trade agreements that benefit all Americans.

His legacy depends on it.

Right now President Obama risks being remembered as a man who presided over a slow-growth economy. To be sure, he has faced enormous challenges, especially early in his tenure. Today, however, global trade presents him with enormous opportunities.

He must do everything in his power to seize them.

Unfortunately, this President has not focused on trade in the first six years of his time in office. He deserves partial credit for pushing through three trade agreements negotiated by the Bush administration. The pacts with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea are already helping our economy. The more we trade, the better we do.

He must and can do more.

At times, the President has talked a good game. He just hasn’t followed through with game-changing action. His promise to double exports by 2015, for example, won’t come close to meeting its ambitious goal.

What’s more, President Obama’s two major trade initiatives appear to have stalled. We’ve seen little progress on a deal with the European Union, and fresh concerns about our ability to resolve differences over the role of biotechnology in modern agriculture have created a new sense of pessimism.

Likewise, talks with a dozen nations along the Pacific Rim—a potential agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership—also have stumbled. Not so long ago, we were promised that TPP would be wrapping up around now.

Despite these disappointments, it’s not too late for President Obama to reverse course. Members of his administration know what’s on the line. “Given the current constraints on fiscal and monetary policies, there is no better source of growth than trade,” writes Michael B. Froman, our top trade diplomat, in the new issue of Foreign Affairs.

In 2013, the United States exported more than $2 trillion in goods and services, supporting more than 11 million American jobs. Over the last five years, one third of all economic growth in the United States has come from global trade.

Farmers know this as well as anybody. About one-third of all the corn we grow ships to international customers. Our livelihoods depend on access to foreign markets. Whenever access improves, money goes into our pockets—as well as the pockets of everyone from longshoremen who work at our ports to factory workers who make tractors in the heartland.

A good first step would be congressional approval of Trade Promotion Authority, a legislative tool that allows the President and his team to negotiate trade agreements confidently and then submit them to Congress for up-or-down votes.

Passage of TPA would send a powerful signal to the EU and the Pacific nations that we’re serious about striking significant deals.

Earlier this year, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada—the current leader of the Democrats in the Senate—sent a different signal, when he announced his opposition to TPA. If voters told us anything last week, however, they said that they expect the President and Congress to cooperate on policy initiatives that will benefit Americans. In other words, our political leaders should stop playing partisan politics and end the gridlock of the recent past.

President Obama ought to reach out to the new Congress—its rookies and its veterans—and ask for TPA. This would be a good start to a new era of bipartisan cooperation, and a great way to jumpstart this President’s final days in the Oval Office.

That old farmer I met long ago would know exactly why this makes sense.

John Rigolizzo, Jr. is a fifth generation farmer, raising fresh vegetables and field corn in southern New Jersey. The family farm produces for retail and wholesale markets. John is a volunteer board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Voters in two states had the good sense to reject ballot proposals last Election Day that threatened to raise food prices for consumers and smother technological innovation for farmers, without delivering a benefit to anybody.

The referenda—called Proposition 105 in Colorado and Measure 92 in Oregon—would have required food packages to carry warning labels if they included genetically modified ingredients. Colorado voters rejected the idea overwhelmingly, by a two-to-one margin. In Oregon, the result was much closer and uncertain until Wednesday, when it finally became clear that the proposal had failed, 51 percent to 49 percent.

This marks the fourth time in the last two years that voters have turned back proposals to require special labels for food with GM contents. Colorado and Oregon now join California and Washington State in rebuffing political efforts to force pointless labels onto food packages. Oregon, in fact, has snubbed the idea twice: this week, plus way back in 2002.

The story of these elections is always the same: An activist group funded by special interests writes a complicated proposal, launches a propaganda campaign, and enjoys a brief moment of popularity. Then, as the public learns the truth about GM food—it’s safe, healthy, and common—voters begin to realize that warning labels don’t make sense. They also don’t like the thought of their food bills going up by hundreds of dollars per year. On Election Day, they vote down a bad idea.

Even in the liberal bastion of Boulder, Colorado—home of the University of Colorado and its well-educated population—schemes to label GM food were met with strong opposition. “Of the dozens of scientists I talked to,” wrote Paul McDivitt on the website of Discover magazine, “none had any concerns about the health and safety of genetically modified foods.” And none supported Proposition 105.

“Humanity has been eating genetically modified food for thousands of years,” said Pieter Tans, a climate researcher at the Boulder office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Michael Breed, a biologist at the University of Colorado, also spoke out: “There’s no convincing scientific evidence that I’m aware of that GMOs present a health hazard, and there’s no practical way to separate and identify GMOs in our food stream.”

Arguments such as these, from trusted authorities, make a huge difference to voters.

Many anti-science activists, however, prefer not to listen. They seem immune to reason and evidence.

The ballot referendum can be a useful tool of democracy, but it’s a poor way to go about building a regulatory system to govern something as complicated and important as food. Such laws should be written by legislators, in consultation with scientific experts—not by professional protestors who are pushing a political agenda, funded by interest groups that have a commercial stake in warning labels that scare consumers away from the food products we eat every day. And have been safely for many years.

Yet the labeling activists won’t stand down. They know that despite their losing streak, success at just one time and in one state will rattle the entire food industry, from farmers to processors to business and store owners to consumers. Odds are they’ll try again soon.

There’s a simple solution to this potential mess: Congress should stop them. A bipartisan coalition already supports the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act, introduced earlier this year by Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Kansas Republican. It would permit food companies to label their products voluntarily, but also prevent states from creating a patchwork of complex rules involving mandatory warning labels for food with GM ingredients.

This is a sensible approach—and it may even be a realistic goal.

President Obama has spoken favorably of GM foods. Perhaps this a subject on which he and the new Republican Congress can find common ground: an issue that need not become yet another victim of gridlock, but rather a bill that enjoys support from members of both parties and benefits the public at large.

It’s time to give these ballot proposals an expiration date of right now.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

They aren’t always what they seem either—and yet they’re at the center of a new push by federal regulators to gain more control over farmland and other pieces of private property.

The confusion began earlier this year. "We’re proposing a Clean Water Act rule that clarifies which waters are protected—with an eye toward those critical waters upstream," wrote Gina McCarthy, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, in March.

Whether the proposed rule clarifies anything is an open question. Presented jointly by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, it takes up 88 pages of small print in the Federal Register.

Those 88 pages of obscure technicalities and administrative legalisms may provide clarity for bureaucrats. For the rest of us, however, they’re as murky as a swamp.

And that brings us to "waterways."

When people read that word, they think of moving bodies of water: rivers, streams, creeks, and so on. Yet this is not what they are, or at least not what farmers mean when we use the word. To us, "waterways" are intermittent channels that fill and flow during torrential downpours.

So that’s the first thing to know about "waterways": They’re almost always dry. They become wet only once or twice a year, when the rain falls so heavily that the soil can’t absorb all of the moisture. The result is runoff—and the rise of a temporary "waterway" that carries the water downstream, before drying up again.

A well-maintained "waterway" is an important part of sustainable agriculture. It prevents soil erosion and helps us grow more food on less land. We work hard to make our "waterways" work well, mowing them several times each summer and reshaping them with earth-moving equipment every three to five years. Most start out as natural features that follow the contours of the land, but almost all are improved by human intervention.

Out of habit, we continue to call them "waterways," but they are probably better understood as "erosion-control structures."

The main objective of the proposed rule is to let the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers exert greater authority over the country’s water supply, including seasonal streams and wetlands. Officials insist that their aims are limited, but farmers like me are skeptical. We’re worried that as regulators apply their new rules, they’ll define "waterways" in a manner that allows them to reach onto our farms, disrupting our safe practices and making it more costly to grow food.

This could become a case study in the law of unintended consequences: Well-meaning regulators try to clarify the meaning of "waterways," but wind up raising the price of food without improving anybody’s health or safety. Moreover, if the regulatory burden of "waterways" grows too heavy, it will create perverse incentives for farmers to become less concerned about the threat of soil erosion.

A couple of weeks ago, one of my Senators—Mark Kirk of Illinois—met with a group of farmers in my area to learn more about the proposed rule. I had the opportunity to show him one of the "waterways" on my farm. It looks like a grassy path, about 30 feet across, and lined on both sides by stalks of corn. As we stood in the middle of this "waterway," I explained its purpose. The whole time, our feet stayed dry.

There’s nothing like firsthand observation. With that in mind, I’d like to invite regulators from the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to visit my farm as well—and to discover that "waterways" may not be what they imagine them to be, when they write their rules from their offices in Washington, D.C.

We all want clean water. We also want common-sense regulations that allow farmers and others to go about their work in ways that are both economically and environmentally sustainable.

Joining others across the US, I am adding my voice in a direct message to the EPA: "Ditch the Rule". Let’s have rules that protect our lakes and rivers and other important bodies of water—and let’s leave these "waterways" out of it.

Daniel Kelley grows corn and soybeans on a family farm near Normal, IL. He volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Science class in high school hasn’t taught me much about farming, but working on my father’s farm has taught me a lot about science.

I’m receiving my formal education at St. Joseph High School in Hammonton, New Jersey, where I’m just now starting the 10th grade and playing offensive line on the JV football team. At the same time, I’m earning an informal—but equally important—education on our family farm.

This spring, I planted all of our corn and some of our soybeans. Over the summer, I protected them from weeds. We’ll harvest soon. Along the way, I’ve learned practical lessons about hard work as well as the need to keep fields clean and crops in straight rows.

I’ve also received hands-on lessons in science. You might say that science is in almost every mouthful of food we eat. It was certainly in every seed I put in the ground. The corn and soybeans we choose to plant on our farm are genetically modified to fight weeds, pests, and drought.

A lot of people seem to think farming is like tending a garden, only bigger. They don’t realize that this is no hobby – it’s a business. Advanced science is at the core of modern agriculture.

When many of us think of biotechnology, our minds turn to test tubes and lab jackets. Mine turns to tractors and fields. In reality, biotechnology occurs every day in nature, under a different pseudonym: adaptation. I’m a biotech adopter, and I’ve gained a basic understanding of how genetically modified crops work and a genuine appreciation for why they matter.

From the earliest times, people have tried to create the best ways to feed the masses. This has always involved genetic modification. When ancient farmers noticed that a certain crop survived a dry summer or resisted a harmful pest, they recognized that it possessed special properties. Through crossbreeding, they tried to make these desirable genes pass down from one season to the next.

Although they failed much more than they succeeded, they also enjoyed great accomplishments.

Consider the case of corn. Today, it’s one of the most instantly recognizable crops, growing taller than most people stand and producing big cobs full of kernels that we feed to livestock and love to put on our own dinner plates.

Thousands of years ago, there was no such thing as corn. There was only a wild grass called teosinte, and it produced just a few kernels per plant. Countless generations of Mesoamerican farmers—Aztecs, Mayans, and others—went to work. Across the centuries, they transformed teosinte into the modern corn crop.

Similar stories could be told for just about everything we cultivate.

Old-fashioned breeding was a bit like playing the lottery: Mostly you lose, though occasionally you win. Today, we have the scientific know-how to win more often and in less time. We can make big improvements from one growing season to the next, not needing to wait decades or longer. In a sense, we’re still playing the lottery, but biotechnology rigs the odds in our favor.

We can also perform crossbreeding exercises that are beyond the reach of conventional biology. The way to defeat the citrus-greening disease that presently threatens to wipe out Florida’s entire orange industry, for example, may lie in the DNA from spinach.

Some people talk about farm biotechnology as if it tries to harness powers we barely understand and produces plants that glow in the dark. This is beyond silly: Scientists know what they’re doing and farmers know what they’re planting.

Because of these advances, we’re growing more food on less land than ever before. We’re also saving the papaya in Hawaii, discovering ways to insert extra nutrition into the rice paddies of Malaysia, and searching for methods that will help coffee growers protect their beans from fungus in Colombia.

I probably wouldn’t know any of this but for farming: I’ve learned about the past and future of agriculture from farmers like my dad.

I don’t know if I’ll be a full-time farmer when I grow up—I have a lot of time to decide—but I’d definitely like to keep our farm in the family’s hands. One thing is for sure: If we’re serious about feeding the world and making agriculture a viable profession for young people to enter, we must embrace biotechnology and all it can do for us.

John Rigolizzo IV is entering the 10th Grade at St. Joseph High School in Hammonton, New Jersey. He works on the family farm in Berlin, New Jersey. Johnny is the youngest member of TATT Board member John Rigolizzo’s family and the newest addition to the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

After 40 years of farming, I think I’ve finally gotten it right: I’m about to produce my best crop ever.

I won’t have the numbers to prove it until we harvest in another month or so, but it looks like our farm in Iowa will yield corn at a rate of 240 bushels per acre, up from a 10-year average of about 187 bushels per acre.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that American farmers will grow more than 14 billion bushels of corn, an all-time high.

Good soil and good weather explain a lot of our success. Yet the difference-making ingredient is the man-made miracle of technology. The genetics that help our crops grow and thrive benefit farmers and consumers alike.

I’ll be the first to admit that some of our success this summer is pure luck. We’ve enjoyed humid days and cool nights, which are ideal for growing corn. A little bit like us, corn goes through 24-hour cycles of work and rest. This year’s conditions have let corn convert sunlight to energy during the day and then recover at night.

Farmers also have to work hard—and unlike the corn, we’re not genetically programmed to flourish. We need to learn from our labor and strive to improve.

In his book "40 Chances", Howard G. Buffett says that most farmers will live through 40 growing seasons—and so they’ll have 40 chances to get better at what they do. I’ve now had my own 40 chances, and the most important thing I’ve learned is that our biggest improvements come from technology.

The genetics behind our seeds allow us to grow bumper crops in years like the one we’re in. They also boost performance in more stressful years, when the nights are too hot or the days too dry. Root systems are much larger than they were a generation ago, helping our corn stalks stand tall against the high winds that can blow them over.

I’ll never complain about the kind of good weather we’ve enjoyed this summer, but it’s important to note that good weather for crops also can mean good weather for harmful pests. Through technology, however, we’re able to fend off the bad insects as never before. Instead of relying on crop-protection tools that wipe out even the beneficial bugs, we can breed plants that resist the destructive ones specifically.

Bumper crops excite farmers, but they make us anxious, too. The laws of economics say that large supplies lead to lower prices—and right now, corn is cheap. This is excellent news for consumers. Corn goes into thousands of every-day grocery-store products, often in ways that aren’t immediately obvious. We use corn for oil, sweeteners, and livestock. Inexpensive corn means less expensive food.

It also means cheaper gas because we transform corn into ethanol. This year’s huge harvest should end the food vs. fuel argument. We can produce plenty of both.

Nobody wants prices to drop so low that farmers struggle. One of the best ways to help farmers is to promote exports. We already ship about one-third of our corn to other countries. Yet we can always send more, and our federal officials play an important part in making this possible.

This year, for example, we’re on track to sell more than 130 million bushels of corn to Colombia, comprising about 95 percent of that country’s corn market, according to the U.S. Grains Council. Our brand-new dominance is a direct result of a free-trade agreement negotiated by the Bush and Obama administrations and approved by Congress three years ago.

We need more trade agreements, starting with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact that would drive the sales of goods and services to customers around the Pacific Rim. We would all also profit from upgrading our infrastructure, which lets us move food by road, rail, and river.

I won’t have another 40 chances to keep on improving, but I do plan to farm for a bit longer. With better trade and technology, I intend to keep on getting things right—and to have my best crop ever a few more times.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

That’s my initial thought upon hearing that Oregon voters will consider Measure 92 this fall. It’s a ballot initiative to require special labels for foods with genetically modified ingredients.

It’s also a bad idea that will cost too much and won’t work—and voters in the Pacific Northwest, upon realizing these facts, have rejected versions of it before.

I’m a farmer in Washington’s Walla Walla County, but my land also crosses the border into Oregon. I grow alfalfa seed on about a hundred acres in the Beaver State. So although I’m a resident of Washington, I also pay income and property taxes in Oregon.

I’m connected to Oregon in lots of other ways as well. My daughter lives in Portland. I cheer for the Blazers. One of my favorite bars is the Waterhole Tavern in Umapine.

I wish I could vote with you in November; as an Oregon tax payer I’d love to cast a ballot against Measure 92.

Then again, I voted against it last November, when it went by a different name: In Washington, a majority of citizens voted down Initiative 522, another attempt to slap expensive and misleading labels on our food.

On first glance, a lot of people support special labels for GM foods. Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, after all.

Once you think about it, though, this idea isn’t so good. There is good evidence to show it will raise prices in grocery stores and fail to provide useful information.

That’s why the people of Washington said no to labels last year. California voters rebuffed a similar effort the year before that. So did Oregon voters way back in 2002, when more than 70 percent opposed Measure 27.

If you like paying high prices at grocery stores, you’re going to love Measure 92, because its labeling requirement will force food companies to repackage just about everything they sell. Last year, the Washington Research Council, a think tank, estimated that special labels would raise the food bill of ordinary families by about $450 per year.

That’s a lot of money—and it might even be worth it, if the added expense delivered essential information. Yet the labels that Measure 92 hopes to mandate would tell us virtually nothing.

We eat GM food everyday, either directly or as the ingredients of ordinary products. On my farm, I grow GM alfalfa seeds—and these seeds become the plants that other farmers feed their livestock.

Farmers like me prefer GM crops because they allow us to grow more food on less land. On my farm, I work hard to grow excellent crops – healthy plants in weed-free fields - that will turn into nutritious, tasty and affordable food, usually by way of dairy cows that produce milk and ice cream. If you’re a believer in sustainable agriculture, this is an important goal—and exactly the sort of practice we should encourage.

Unfortunately, labels would have the reverse effect. They’d drive consumers to fear what’s in their food.

And there’s no reason they should. Groups ranging from the American Medical Association to the National Academy of Sciences have endorsed the health and safety of GM foods.

Some consumers may want to avoid GM foods anyway. The good news is that they can, right now, without the labels that Measure 92 would require: They can buy food that carries the organic label. Under federal regulations, organic foods cannot contain GM ingredients. Moreover, a number of popular non-organic products, such as Cheerios, already label themselves voluntarily as GM-free.

So think about what Measure 92 would accomplish: It would raise the prices of ordinary grocery-store products, provide information that won’t help you make better decisions about what you eat, and duplicate efforts already underway.

When Washington voters faced their own version of Measure 92 last year, they initially supported the idea. That’s what the polls showed. As they became better informed, however, they came to see the proposal as the bad solution to a non-problem. And so they voted against it, along with previous majorities in California and Oregon.

Mark Wagoner is a third generation farmer in Walla Walla County, Washington where they raise alfalfa seed. Mark volunteers as a Board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife service did a huge disservice to science, wildlife and modern agriculture last month, when it banned the planting of genetically modified crops in the National Wildlife Refuge System.

"We make this decision based on a precautionary approach to our wildlife management practices," wrote James Kurth, head of the refuge system, on July 17, according to the Associated Press.

Did you catch the key word? It’s one of the most loaded terms in the vocabulary of regulation: "precautionary."

On the face of it, "precautionary" sounds reasonable. While crossing the street, it makes sense to take a "precautionary approach." Better safe than sorry.

In the jargon of government, however, "precautionary" carries a special meaning. When bureaucrats speak of a "precautionary approach"—or the "precautionary principle," which is a more common way to put it—they’re usually trying to justify the suppression of a new idea or technology as too hazardous.

We all want sensible regulations, of course. Yet we also know that regulations are often insensible, thwarting the interests of the public they’re supposed to serve. Have you ever filled out a pointless form? Or wondered if it’s a crime to remove a mattress tag? And don’t get me started on the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to control the amount of dust that farmers kick up as they drive their tractors.

For all of these inconveniences, however, the United States has avoided the predicament of Europe, where the "precautionary principle" has become a powerful force to strangle innovation. This is why Europe remains so far behind the United States, Canada, Brazil and many other countries in the area of agricultural biotechnology. Over there, obsolete regulations continue to oppose new technologies, even though the safety of GM foods is settled science.

Mr. Kurth’s "precautionary approach" raises an alarm: He’s not speaking the language of science or common sense, but rather adopting a bad phrase that has bedeviled Europe.

We don’t need it here. Our trade negotiators don’t need it either. Banning GM crops in certain areas is no way to persuade China, Japan, and other countries to accept our food exports.

It may seem odd that the chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System should feel the need to say anything at all about farming. Crops aren’t "wildlife" and a cultivated field is no "refuge."

Farmers plant GM crops in some wildlife refuges with a specific purpose: They are better for the animals and the environment. The stronger stalks and larger corn ears provide more food for the wildlife during the deep snows of winter.

Yet Kurth has introduced a new prejudice into America’s web of farming regulations. He has granted the presumption that GM crops are too novel, too mysterious, and too risky to allow their use in some of the country’s most pristine spaces. He can cite no actual science to back up his bias—but then, the "precautionary approach" never has been about science. It’s about emotion defeating reason and fear trumping evidence.

If Kurth believes that GM crops pose a threat, he should have the gumption to say so plainly and present his evidence—and not hide behind words like "precautionary."

The evidence in support of the health and safety of GM crops is in fact overwhelming. That’s why the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences—among many other groups—have supported the spread of biotechnology in agriculture.

Let me introduce another piece of evidence, from the very system that Kurth oversees: the Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, near Des Moines in my home state of Iowa. It’s the country’s largest recreation of a tallgrass prairie ecosystem—thousands of acres that look as they did when settlers arrived in the 19th century, complete with a thriving herd of buffalo.

This wildlife refuge thrives alongside biotechnology. In some areas, farmers grow GM corn and soybeans on one side of the road while badgers, elk, and pheasants wander around the other. The crops and animals coexist, in a model we should admire and emulate rather than doubt and dread.

The solution is simple: Let’s throw precaution to the wind.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Chuck Norris doesn’t write columns. He stares at words until they arrange themselves into sentences.

That’s a "Chuck Norris Fact"—one you haven’t heard before because I just made it up. But perhaps you’re familiar with the style of joke: a satirical, exaggerated claim about the supposedly superhuman powers of actor and martial artist Chuck Norris. Entire books and websites are dedicated to this sub-genre of humor.

Unfortunately, there was nothing funny about Norris’s recent online column. It was a fact-free rant about modern agriculture. Norris warned his readers that the genetically modified food they eat everyday—the kind that I grow on my farm here in Iowa—is "killing you softly."

This is sheer nonsense. It’s like somebody roundhouse-kicked the sense out of Norris.

I’m disappointed in the column mostly because it’s wrong, but also because I admire Norris. He grew up under difficult circumstances and went on to achieve great success in his chosen professions. He’s a military veteran and a man of faith, just like me.

And I’ve met him: When Norris traveled to Iowa with presidential candidate Mike Huckabee a few years ago, I attended one of their events and shook Norris’s hand. You won’t be surprised to learn that he has a strong grip.

His grip on the facts of 21st-century agriculture, however, is weak.

In his column, Norris suggests that GM crops may cause cancer and Parkinson’s disease. This is pure hogwash—a pair of completely unfounded claims. Norris turns even more provocative when he writes of the possibility of "novel epidemics."

That’s a novel distortion of reality. This idea of ordinary crops causing a plague might work as the half-baked premise of a B-list fantasy film, but it’s simply not sound science. The American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences are just two of the many mainstream groups that support the health and safety of GM foods.

It makes sense to trust the expert views of the men and women who belong to the AMA and the NAS, but you probably wouldn’t want to watch them star in a Chuck Norris movie. Or maybe you would, but only to laugh at their antics, the way so many people laughed their way through "Sharknado 2" on the SyFy channel last week.

I might have laughed my way through Norris’s column, too—except that I’m concerned that a few of his readers will take his allegations seriously.

Norris is especially feeble on a subject that I happen to know well: weed and pest control. I’m familiar with weeds and pests the way characters Norris plays are familiar with villains in black hats.

As a farmer, I battle weeds and pests all summer. Weeds rob moisture and soil nutrition from my crops. Pests attack what I’m trying to grow. Defeating both is a central task of successful farming, whether you grow corn and soybeans in Iowa or cotton in Burkina Faso.

Norris claims that GM crops require more chemical sprays than non-GM crops, but this is false. One of the reasons why farmers prefer GM crops is because they demand fewer applications of herbicide and pesticides than non-GM varieties.

Norris actually accuses farmers of dumping "a component of Agent Orange" on our fields. The specific product he mentions—the one that he hopes will conjure up horrific images of a controversial Vietnam-era defoliant—is the most widely accepted herbicide on the planet. As a Vietnam veteran, I am offended as he demonizes the basic ingredient in the weed-and-feed that homeowners spread on their lawns and gardeners sprinkle around their vegetable beds safely in the U.S. and around the world.

Rather than trying to become one of Hollywood’s self-appointed experts on toxicology and human health, Norris should stick to his day job as an entertainer. We look to him for daredevil stunts and clever one-liners, not wrongheaded opinions about things he fails to understand.

GM crops help farmers grow more food on less land. For consumers, they contribute to safe, healthy, and affordable diets.

Let’s call these "Bill Horan Facts." They may not be funny, but they’re the truth.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

You go to the grocery store, buy a sack of potatoes, and come home to get that meal on the table fast – only to discover after peeling and slicing, you don’t have that clear, consistent color you were expecting. Instead you find internal bruising or black spots that you have to cut away. The wasted potatoes go in the garbage and you think, what a waste.

Wouldn’t it be nice if technology could prevent all of this hassle and waste?

Soon it will. A new potato that is the result of some exciting innovative technology is almost ready for market – and it’s developed to reduce black spot bruising and browning when cut.

The science is simple. Take the DNA from wild and cultivated potatoes and insert it into the tubers of other potatoes that produce seed. The result is a hardier potato that resists browning and has less bruising which can come from harvesting, shipping or storing. It also equals a long shelf life without additives, which is important.

I live in the region of South-Central Idaho, often referred to as the "Magic Valley". It may sound like the name of a Disney Princess movie, but it is our home and it’s ideal for growing potatoes.

My husband, Russell and I own a family farm which grows a variety of crops, including potatoes. So, not only do I want feed my own kids and grandkids a delicious and nutritious potato – we want to produce a potato that is capable of less waste and improved use by the consumer.

Yet, no matter how hard we try, we can’t keep them from bruising.

Harvesting potatoes, after all, involves digging them up out of the ground. Even with the special care we farmers take digging and delivering with the most modern specialized potato equipment available, the potatoes take unpreventable drops throughout the process. It’s these drops that cause the potato bruising and damage that results in the waste in processing and also the wasted fresh potatoes that end up in our homes. This InnateTM technology is not only beneficial to the producer, but also beneficial to the consumer. Less waste means more produce to feed a hungry world, how amazing is that?

That’s why these new potatoes are so promising. Farmers who have worked with them in test plots say they have seen bruising reduced by half or more. The potatoes don’t taste any different. They are regular potatoes in every way, except they don’t bruise or brown as much.

Because of this very innovative development, one estimate says we will save 400 million pounds of potatoes each year. If you realize the significance of growing more food on less ground and utilizing the need for increased production of food for a growing population, you will agree with me – this is exactly what we need. Doing more with less and these potatoes are a giant step in the right direction.

These potatoes are now at the end of a rigorous federal review. Food regulators have determined they are safe, grow just like other potatoes and do not pose any environmental risks on human health. In June 2014, the U.S. Department of Agriculture wrapped up a second round of public comments. Approval for commercial use could come at any time.

InnateTM technology offers farmers yet another way to innovatively increase the quality and use of the potatoes that we produce. It will be beneficial to every person who loves eating potatoes and to every person who wants to do their part in sustainable food production.

One of the benefits of living on a potato farm: We eat what we grow. Like you, I want safe and nutritious food for my family. We are so lucky to have advanced science which enables us, as not only consumers, to enjoy an abundant food supply but also as a farm family it allows us to be sustainable guardians of the land we love and depend on.

Lisa Patterson and her husband live in Heyburn, Idaho. They grow potatoes, sugar beets, barley and corn on a family farm in the Idaho "Magic Valley". She is happily involved in the business side of the farm, but loves spending time with her family, friends and especially, her grandchildren. Lisa joins the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Brazil didn’t win the World Cup on its home turf earlier this month, but the country’s investment in the needed infrastructure to host the world proved to be a real winner. Today Brazil is beating the rest of the planet in an area that’s less visible but more important long-term: an effective biotechnology regulatory system.

No country approves safe crops with the newest ag biotech innovations with more speed than Brazil.

Unfortunately, Washington seems to approach the matter like a soccer goalie: It wants to block everything. At least that’s what the current numbers suggest.

Just seven years ago, Brazil and the United States needed about the same amount of time to review new products in agricultural biotechnology: Brazil took a little less than 600 days and the United States took a little more. Brazil was more efficient, but at least the two countries were in the same ballpark—or on the same soccer pitch.

Brazil, however, has worked hard to improve its methods. Since 2010, it has needed an average of just 372 days between first application and final approval. That’s a year and a week.

Meanwhile, U.S. regulators have raced in the opposite direction. They’ve behaved like Tim Howard, the American goalie who set the record for most stops in a World Cup game. Since 2010, they’ve needed an average of more than 1,200 days to approve new products.

That’s almost three years.

This poor performance gives a whole new meaning to a term many of us casual fans of soccer have come to know: extra time.

These delays are killing American competitiveness. And it’s not just Brazil. Two of our other major competitors in food production, Argentina and Canada, are also much quicker to approve biotech traits.

This means that farmers in those countries soon will enjoy access to better crop technologies than we possess in the United States.

I’ve seen the trouble firsthand on my farm. I grow alfalfa seed—and for years, we’ve been waiting for the federal government to approve an excellent product developed by a consortium of companies, the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, and the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center, which is a federal agency.

It’s called reduced-lignin alfalfa, and it promises an improved product with more yield and less farm work. In other words, fewer harvests will generate additional tons of a plant that’s more digestible for dairy cows. This variety of alfalfa is better in every way. And yes, consumers will benefit too: When we save money in our fields, consumers will save it when they buy milk in their grocery stores.

The only thing not to like about reduced-lignin alfalfa is the regulatory bureaucracy surrounding its approval—or, more precisely, its non-approval. This safe and excellent product continues to remain just beyond the reach of farmers, for no reason any of us can understand.

Regulatory systems must be science-based and timely. They also must be predictable. Right now, the only thing we can predict about GM crop approvals is that they’ll take far too long. On our farm, we can’t plan what to grow or when to rotate our crops.

What’s more, investors are becoming reluctant to devote research-and-development dollars to agriculture. The world desperately needs new ways to produce more food, but biotech-approval delays smother the innovations that might help us meet this essential goal of the 21st century.

Earlier this year, Mike Firko, a biotech regulator at the Department of Agriculture, promised to clear up a big backlog of crop petitions by the end of this year. That’s the good news. The bad news is that he was referring to petitions filed before November 2011, which is closer in time to the World Cup hosted by South Africa than the one that just finished in Brazil.

The Department of Agriculture has said it should be able to go through an application in 450 days or less. That’s a long time—longer than what Brazil needs right now—but also a tremendous improvement over current practices.

When it comes to biotech regulations is it too much to hope that we might keep pace with a country like Brazil? Do we dare hope that we’ll have access to reduced-lignin alfalfa in two years, when the Summer Olympics kick off in Rio de Janeiro?

Mark Wagoner is a third generation farmer in Walla Walla County, Washington where they raise alfalfa seed. Mark volunteers as a Board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

The Japanese call their country the "Land of the Rising Sun." Unfortunately, there are some people in the United States today who want the sun to set on trade talks with Japan before they’ve even had a chance to shine above the horizon.

This is a mistake. Nobody should reject a trade agreement they haven’t seen.

The current trouble involves the Trans-Pacific Partnership, whose latest round of ongoing talks wrapped up last week. TPP is a promising but complex negotiation that includes the United States, Japan, and 10 other Pacific Rim countries with a combined population of nearly 800 million and a total GDP of about $28 trillion. TPP nations account for about 40 percent of global trade.

At a time when the World Trade Organization warns that many countries have done more to protect their economies from competition than to open them—this was the main point of a report issued last month—the United States must push in the opposite direction, negotiating free-trade agreements that create more trading opportunities not less. Our economy may be sluggish, but we need foreign markets: Exports have driven about one-third of U.S. economic growth in recent years.

The more we trade, the more we prosper.

TPP is ambitious: "The breadth of its agenda is beyond that of any major trade negotiation ever conducted," wrote Clayton Yeutter, a former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Trade Representative. Talks began several years ago and they’ve already made important progress on a variety of fronts, from intellectual property to environmental regulations. It may be possible to have an excellent agreement by the end of this year.

Yet the negotiations are not complete, and a few of the really tough parts still remain on the table. The toughest of all may be Japan’s determination to protect its inefficient but politically potent agriculture sector.

Some U.S. farm groups have urged the Obama administration to exclude Japan from TPP unless it agrees to lower its food tariffs to zero. In the Capitol South Metro Station in Washington, D.C.—the subway stop that serves Congress—a poster features a picture of railroad cars. "This train doesn’t stop for one nation," it says. "Japan must accept zero tariffs or jump off."

This is a worthy goal. Under zero tariffs, the Japanese would benefit from lower food prices and greater consumer choice. American farmers would enjoy millions of new customers for beef, pork, wheat, and dairy products.

Yet we can’t let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Japan simply may refuse to accept the complete elimination of tariffs. At the same time, our trade diplomats may win important concessions—including concessions that set Japan on a course that could achieve zero tariffs over time.

In other words, it’s possible to imagine a historic deal in which Japan opens its markets to more competition than ever before, but at the same time fails to meet an unrealistic though laudable goal.

I’m confident our trade negotiators understand that zero tariffs are an excellent objective. At the same time, their critics must accept that something short of zero tariffs could represent a good result that helps American farmers and businesses.

The wisest course right now is to impose a moratorium on criticizing the TPP talks. Many of us share the same principles, wanting an agreement that allows as much trade as possible. Now we should let our trade diplomats go to work. When they’re done, we can debate the results—and accept or reject TPP as we see fit.

Until then, let’s not attack an agreement we haven’t even seen. It’s like judging a harvest in the spring rather than the fall.

And while we are doing that, the lawmakers in the U.S. Congress must focus their energies on the one thing they can to do help TPP right now: They should approve Trade Promotion Authority, allowing Congress to hold up-or-down votes on trade deals. This would send a powerful signal to the "Land of the Rising Sun" that we want TPP to soar high and shine brightly.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Some nights it’s stressful enough to put dinner on the table for my family. Imagine being responsible for feeding millions of people.

That’s the achievement of Dr. Sanjaya Rajaram, announced as the winner of the 2014 World Food Prize. His wheat varieties have boosted global wheat production by 200 million tons.

Dr. Rajaram would be a fitting recipient of the World Food Prize at any time, but this year it is even more poignant and appropriate because it also marks the centennial of Dr. Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution. As Borlaug’s successor at CIMMYT, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, Rajaram is one of Borlaug’s most accomplished students.

Before Dr. Borlaug died five years ago, he praised Rajaram as "a scientist of great vision who made a significant contribution to the improvement of world wheat production, working for the benefit of hundreds of thousands of farmers in countries around the globe."

I’m one of them. On our family farm in Oklahoma, we grow a variety of Hard Red Winter Wheat, ideal for bread, which was developed at Oklahoma State University. We plant it toward the end of September and harvest it in June—and the success of each crop makes a big difference in my family’s bottom line.

That’s another reason I appreciate the selection of Rajaram this year: The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization has decreed 2014 as the International Year of Family Farming. The work of scientists like Rajaram improves family farming.

I’m reminded of Borlaug’s final words: "Take it to the farmer." They were spoken to Dr. Bill Raun, one of his many friends at Oklahoma State University as he was showing Dr. Borlaug the technology his team had developed to help farmers better manage the use of nitrogen fertilizer. Today, the Greenseeker technology is helping farmers around the world cut costs and safeguards the environment.

Rajaram has embodied these words his whole life.

He started out on a family farm himself—a poor one, in rural India. His parents raised wheat, corn, and rice on a handful of acres. In that time and place, almost nobody received a formal education. Yet Rajaram’s parents were dedicated to their children—and in Rajaram, they saw a special intelligence and drive. So they sent him to school.

This was the start of a brilliant career. From the beginning, he was a top student who leaped from opportunity to opportunity. He eventually earned a Ph.D. in plant breeding from the University of Sydney in Australia. One of his professors there had studied with Borlaug in the United States and recommended Rajaram to his old friend. Soon, Rajaram was working by Borlaug’s side in Mexico as a member of CIMMYT’s team.

Rajaram was halfway around the world from his humble origins, but he never forgot his roots. He wanted to alleviate the struggles of the other family farmers he knew as a boy. So he worked to create the crops that would help them live better lives.

Today, he’s credited with developing 480 high-yielding wheat varieties that resist disease and other stresses. They’ve been grown on more than 100 million acres in 51 countries, from the acidic soils of Brazil to the mountains of Pakistan.

Rajaram picked a good crop for his focus. Wheat covers more acreage than any other cultivated plant and it represents the primary source of calories for more than half of the world’s people.

Despite its importance, wheat sometimes seems like the crop that technology forgot. It has not yet felt the innovations in biotechnology that have transformed the way we grow corn and soybeans, two other staple crops.

My family farm would benefit enormously from genetically modified wheat that makes more efficient use of the soil’s nitrogen. And we can’t have drought tolerance soon enough: This year’s wheat harvest is the worst I’ve seen in 20 years and it may be the worst in Oklahoma since the 1950s.

I’m hopeful, if only because Rajaram is hopeful: "I believe that the challenges of 21st-century agriculture and food production are surmountable," he says. Yet he also warns that technology must keep up with changing times: "Future crop production is bound to decline unless we fully factor in the issues related to climate change, soil fertility, and water deficits, and utilize advanced genetics in the next 20 to 30 years."

This October, Rajaram will receive the award formally, during the World Food Prize celebrations in Des Moines. Family farmers will celebrate with him, and hope that just as Borlaug inspired him, he will inspire a new generation of scientists to help us grow more and better wheat.

Hope Pjesky and her family are farmers / ranchers in northern Oklahoma where they raise cattle and wheat. Hope volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

All eyes are on the World Cup in Brazil this month. As a farmer in southern Brazil in Parana State, near the city of Ponta Grossa, I’m cheering for the home team—and I’m relieved that we survived a tough contest against Chile in the first game of the knockout round.

Another kind of knockout is also on my mind, and our rival is one that many Brazilians know far too well: mosquitoes. These pests are constant threats to public health—but now biotechnology may offer an excellent solution to an age-old problem.

Mosquitoes spread many diseases, and one of the worst is dengue fever. In addition to elevating temperatures, the virus causes headaches, joint pains, and skin rashes. It affects about 50 million people around the globe each year. Perhaps a million of them die. There is no vaccine or cure.

My region of Brazil is too cold at night for the mosquitoes that spread dengue fever to survive, but I have friends who have suffered from the affliction. They’ve struggled with severe discomfort—they complain about bad pain behind their eyeballs—and they must worry about second infections, because those are the ones that can turn fatal.

Biologists have identified more than 3,500 species of mosquito around the world, but only a handful of them carry the virus that causes dengue fever—and one in particular, the Aedes aegypti, is the main culprit. It has African origins but now lives in tropical areas just about everywhere, including three Brazilian cities that are hosting World Cup games.

Unfortunately, these pests are difficult to control. Bed nets provide good protection against mosquitoes that come out at night, but dengue-carrying mosquitoes are active during the day. They also thrive in urban areas, so it’s impossible for many people to avoid their habitat. Finally, these parasites have started to develop resistance to common forms of insecticide.

For a while, it looked like the best we could do was simply to put up with a certain amount of dengue fever.

Today, however, biotechnology offers new hope and a sustainable way to confront the problem. British scientists have learned how to fight back through genetic modification. The transgenic mosquito carries a gene that prevents the females from flying when they reach adulthood. Males can still fly but that does not cause a problem because they feed only on nectar and plant juices, unable to transmit the disease. As the mosquitoes reach adulthood and males mate with females, the gene will be transmitted to their offspring ultimately helping to solve a public health problem.

Field trials last year in the city of Jacobina showed promising results, with Aedes aegypti populations crashing by an estimated 79 percent. This year, Brazilian officials have launched a pilot program to test the method in larger areas. They’ve worked hard to engage the public, holding meetings to explain the approach and advertising it on the sides of trucks as well as on the radio. In April, a report on Public Radio International noted the program’s "wide acceptance" among the people of Jacobina.

And why wouldn’t they approve? It’s a creative solution that may prevent a terrible public health malady.

It’s environmentally friendly, too. Right now, the best way to slow down the transmission of dengue fever is to spray insecticide around vulnerable homes. Yet this treatment kills insects without discrimination—not just Aedes aegypti, but also bugs that pose no threat to anyone.

Biotechnology lets us focus on the true problem. In military terms, we’d call it a surgical strike that hits its target as opposed to a carpet bombing with collateral damage.

It remains to be seen how well this strategy will work. Brazil is a huge country, full of mosquitoes. Reducing their numbers is no simple trick. Yet even a small cut in the incidence of dengue fever will improve the lives of my fellow Brazilians.

We have every reason to be optimistic. On my own farm, I’ve seen how biotechnology can help me grow more food on less land. Adapting the gene-transfer technologies that have improved agriculture to other challenges could represent a major step in the global Gene Revolution.

I’m cheering for Brazil not only to win the World Cup, but also to triumph over dengue fever.

Richard Franke Dijkstra farms with his family in Southern Brazil where they grow soybeans, edible beans, corn, wheat, barley, ray grass and black oats; 50% of the soybeans and corn they plant are GM and 100% of the operation is no-tillage. Richard and his brother-in-law also operate a 480 cow dairy and raise 4000 hogs annually. Richard is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Once, my farm was part of a war zone, just south of Johannesburg, South Africa. I had to be optimistic to drive a tractor through a minefield, as I did in the aftermath of South African apartheid. In fact, trying something new always requires a bit of optimism. Nonetheless, the first time that I planted genetically modified crops, I was nervous. Would they grow? Would they improve my yields? Or would they fail, as so many other crops in Africa had before them?

Nearly a decade has passed since then, and today I can hardly imagine farming without these important tools of technology. Although things are better now in South Africa, life has conditioned many of us to pessimism. Why wouldn’t it? Two-thirds of all Africans are farmers, according to the World Bank. That’s a higher rate of employment in agriculture than anywhere else on the planet. And yet Africa is the hungriest continent.What a cruel paradox: We farm the most and eat the least.

I’ve farmed for more than 20 years, starting as an ordinary laborer. In the wake of my country’s land redistribution, I own and farm 21 hectares and rent more. One of the biggest challenges for any farmer involves guarding crops from pests. In my experience as a farm laborer, my boss used tractors with huge booms to spray the plants. When the corn grew too high for driving, airplanes flew overhead and dropped pesticide. As smaller, independent farmers, we wore protective clothing and carried 12-liter knapsacks of pesticides through the field ourselves, often on tremendously hot days.It was a constant struggle against pests and for personal safety.

Pesticides break down before the food they protect reaches consumers, but exposure to them in large quantities can hurt farmers who don’t take proper precautions.So when pest-resistant GMO corn became available in South Africa in 2005, I wanted to try it. A non-profit group, AfricaBio, gave me guidance. I learned, for instance, that 20% of our seeds were non-GMO, so that our fields would fight pests but also provide a refuge, preventing them from developing a resistance to GMO corn. This approach contributes to the environmental sustainability of GMOs. Our goal, after all, is not to drive a species into extinction, but merely to protect our plants from its attackers. Ultimately, we seek a kind of peaceful coexistence.

During that first season, I started to see the results soon. My plants were bigger, stronger and healthier. During harvest, the yields increased by 34 percent. At that moment, I understood that biotechnology would be an essential part of Africa’s farming future.

We grow more, spray less and look forward to a future full of biotechnology.

A generation ago, much of Africa missed out on the Green Revolution, which brought modern agricultural practices to the developing world. Today, Africa must become a full participant in the Gene Revolution. Our governments must let us enjoy access to the biotechnology tools that fuel incredible agricultural production in the United States and so much of the western hemisphere. Why should we lack what those farmers have?

South Africa was an early adopter of GMOs, and for that I’m grateful. Too many other African countries have resisted biotechnology. They’ve responded to the misplaced worries of Europeans, who have largely refused to accept GMO foods. In my opinion, GMOs are perfectly healthy for human consumption. I’ve been eating them for years, from what I grow on my own farm!

The good news is that seven African countries—Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria and Uganda—appear ready to join South Africa in commercializing GMOs, according to the latest report of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). On my farm, I’ve hosted visitors from these countries and elsewhere. They want to see how GMO crops succeed, and I like to think that I’ve done my small part to inform and educate people who want to improve their own food security.

Many of the anti-GMO activists come from wealthy countries, where food security is taken for granted. I suspect that most of them never miss a meal. They remind me of the protestors from an earlier time, who complained about advances in conventional farming during the Green Revolution. Sometimes I wonder if they’re not against GMOs as much as they’re against every kind of new technology that farmers find helpful. I’d like to invite them to tour African farms, and see the hardship. Maybe that will change their hearts and minds.

GMOs changed my life for the better. I’m not just a subsistence farmer, as are so many of my fellow Africans, but rather a farmer who makes a profit. One of my sons went to college, where he earned a biomedical degree, and my profits paid his school fees. People are always talking about sustainable agriculture, and I’m a believer in this movement—especially if the definition of "sustainability" includes economic sustainability, and an appreciation for farmers who aspire to do more than merely feed their own kids.

When I started working on farms as a young man, the thought of giving away food never occurred to me. Today, however, I’m able to donate a portion of my crops to local charities, including a child-care center, an old-age home and a hospice. So agricultural biotechnology sustains me, my family and my neighbors—as well as consumers who I’ll never meet.

We need more GMOs, not less. We need new traits that help us survive droughts and adapt to climate change. We need seeds fortified with vitamin A, so that our children can get the nutrition that they need. Right now, we’re on the threshold of remarkable progress, all because we’ve learned how to make the most of our crops.

Let’s continue to do all that we can to grow as much as possible.

Motlatsi Musi farms maize, beans, potatoes, and breeds pigs and cows in South Africa. He is a member of Truth about Trade & Technology’s Global Farmer Network(www.truthabouttrade.org).

I’m a fourth-generation wheat farmer in Saskatchewan—and one of my long-term goals is to make sure the fifth generation on my family farm also has the opportunity to enjoy the full benefits of technology. We cannot let international trading rules be determined by scientific illiteracy and special interest pleading.

A growing number of people share this objective: Earlier this month, 16 major groups in Australia, Canada, and the United States called for the commercialization of genetically modified wheat. That’s up from the nine organizations that put out a similar statement five years ago.

We’re gaining numbers and strength.

Our ranks include some of the most forward-looking groups in the wheat producing and exporting world - from my own Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association to Grain Producers Australia and the U.S. based National Association of Wheat Growers to more broad-based groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation. It’s not just farmers who are encouraging GM wheat: The Canadian National Millers Association and the North American Millers Association also have signed on.

We seek innovation, investment, and regulations based on sound science. "In addition to protecting the continued availability of wheat foods, wheat enhanced through biotechnology ultimately offers the promise of improved products, more sustainable production, and environmental benefits," says the new statement.

This is an essential strategy for global food security. Wheat currently accounts for about 20 percent of the world’s daily caloric intake. Yet demand for it continues to multiply, as the planet’s population increases and the middle class expands.

We have to continue to grow more food on less land, using less inputs—something that biotechnology, as a tool, has enabled farmers to do with many crops, such as canola, corn, soybeans and cotton. Why leave wheat farmers on the sidelines?

I’ve also experienced the advantages as we have grown GM canola on our farm for 18 years. Biotechnology offers us better weed and disease control, which means we don’t have to devote as much time or resources to cultivation or spraying our fields. It decreases our use of expensive inputs and boosts our yields. That’s good for farmers, good for consumers and good for the environment.

I’d like to see the same benefits of biotechnology in wheat. Right now, however, there’s no such thing as GM wheat—at least not outside the test plots of researchers and the daydreams of working farmers like me.

Many critics resist biotechnology, and spend a lot of time and money scaring people. For the most part, farmers understand the benefits but we recognize there continues to be uncertainty over acceptance in several markets. Will our customers in Europe and Japan accept GM wheat? Not today, but I am optimistic these challenges will be overcome once the truth about food safety, environmental benefits and consumer benefits becomes better known.

A lot of progress has been made in the 20 years since GM crops were first approved. We now have a long and impressive track record with agricultural biotechnology—and mountains of hard evidence in support of the health and safety of GM crops.

Farmers around the world have now planted more than 4 billion acres of GM crops. People have eaten more than 2 trillion meals using ingredients from GM crops. Although some misinformation and confusion still surrounds biotechnology, understanding and acceptance have grown. The environmental benefits from the reduction in the use of fuel, fertilizer and pesticides are simply too powerful to ignore. The promise of more nutritious food is also a compelling argument that will eventually help win the day.

Those are among the reasons why my organization endorsed the trilateral statement in support of GM wheat. We want to help lay the groundwork for the adoption of this technology. We don’t want anyone to say they were blindsided when this technology comes to our fields.

It won’t happen overnight. Although scientists already know how to produce GM wheat using the same proven technologies that have enhanced other crops, the technology won’t be adopted until all regulatory approvals are obtained. The new statement from wheat groups makes this very clear: "Biotech wheat will be subject to rigorous scientific testing as well as extensive government approval processes before it is available anywhere in the world."

In the meantime, farmers and others have some important work to do: we must informthe public about the value of GM crops and get systems in place that accommodate consumer choice. If we do our jobs well, consumers, farmers and the planet will eventually reap the benefits of GM wheat—and many of us will wonder why it took so long.

Gerrid Gust and his family raise canola, lentils, flax and cereal grains including durum and soft white wheat on the Canadian prairies. Gerrid is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

If we could provide a food that would save the lives of millions of kids, we’d do it.

Right?

That’s the miracle of Golden Rice, a genetically modified crop that fights vitamin A deficiency—a malady that has killed an estimated 8 million children over the last dozen years, mostly in the developing world. The lucky ones who survive often go blind.

Here in the Philippines, the problem is so severe that the government distributes vitamin A capsules to children under the age of 5 as well as to pregnant women.

This effort has reduced vitamin A deficiency in my country. Yet more must be done: 15 percent of Filipino children continue to suffer from this deadly form of malnutrition, according to the Food and Nutrition Research Institute.

Golden Rice is a possible solution and as a farmer, a tool that I want available in my country. It generates extra amounts of beta-carotene, a compound that helps produce vitamin A. Just one cup of cooked Golden Rice can provide small children with more than half of their daily vitamin A needs. If enough farmers grow Golden Rice, we might finally be able to defeat the scourge of vitamin A deficiency.

When I think about Golden Rice, I think about it from two perspectives: as a mother and as a farmer.

Like so many Filipino mothers, I serve rice to my family all the time. It’s the most fundamental ingredient in Filipino cuisine.

I’m also a farmer who grows rice during our wet season, which runs from now to October. Most of what I harvest goes to consumers I’ll never meet—but a portion of it winds up in the rice bowls my family use at home.

So I want to make sure that everything we grow and eat is safe, nutritious, and sustainable.

Earlier this spring, I was invited to attend a workshop sponsored by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), a Philippines-based nonprofit independent research and training organization dedicated to reducing hunger and poverty through better rice farming and nutrition. One of its major priorities is to fight vitamin A deficiency through the widespread adoption of Golden Rice.

During my visit, I was impressed to learn that there are no hidden agendas behind Golden Rice. Agriculture is of course a big business, and companies are always trying to persuade me to buy their seeds or equipment. Most salesmen are fair and honest, but I still have to approach them with care and caution.

Golden Rice, however, is different. Its European inventors have granted free licenses to develop and grow Golden Rice on a not-for-profit basis. IRRI has worked to create local varieties of Golden Rice so that Filipino farmers can grow it and Filipino families can feed it to their children.

Many other kinds of genetically modified crops carry important advantages for farmers: The GM corn I grow on my farm each winter fights weeds and pests, allowing me to grow more food on less land and contribute to my country’s food security. Consumers enjoy abundance that’s affordable and nutritious, but they don’t usually recognize the role of technology.

Golden Rice, by contrast, is all about "biofortification." The whole point is to help consumers by fighting malnutrition. It’s not merely safe—it’s positively beneficial. It’s ‘Healthy Rice". The research and development that have gone into it represent an extraordinary act of altruism. Making Golden Rice available to farmers will improve the lives of millions of people almost immediately—and everyone will know it.

Tragically, we’ve seen massive resistance to Golden Rice, led by the ideological forces and special interests that despise biotechnology in agriculture. They fear Golden Rice because they know its adoption will convince the masses that GM crops are good for us. Last year, a group of protestors even attacked a field where the IRRI was testing Golden Rice—an act of vandalism against scientific inquiry whose ultimate victims are the children suffering from vitamin A deficiency.

We all want to eat safe and healthy food—and we want regulatory agencies to support these efforts with sensible, science-based rules.

The next rule they should adopt involves Golden Rice: Let the farmers grow it and let the children eat it.

Every day we wait condemns more innocent children to blindness and death.

Rosalie Ellasus is a first-generation farmer, growing corn and rice in San Jacinto, Philippines. Rosalie allows her farm to be used as a demonstration plot for smallholder farmers to visit and learn from. She is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

A group of ladies visited our family farm a few days ago. The suburban "Field Moms" from the Chicago, Illinois area didn’t know much about agriculture and had sensible questions about where their food comes from. They were fascinated by the equipment and technologies we use, and left with a new appreciation for how hard and carefully we work to grow safe and healthy crops.

I enjoy sharing what happens on our farm in Illinois. Our door is always open, whether you’re from Chicago, New York, London, or Beijing.

The "Field Moms" hoped to learn more about how we grow the food they feed their families: Do farmers have a choice about what they plant? How do we maintain the soil? Where do crops go after they’re harvested?

Many people are also curious about genetically modified crops. Are GMOs safe?

It’s an important question, and the people who buy the food we grow must be confident that it is safe, nutritious, and sustainable.

Unfortunately, not all of our customers have the opportunity to visit our farms. Lots of what we grow stays here in the United States, but plenty of it ships to customers far away, even on the other side of the world. China, for instance, is an important destination for our corn and soybeans.

I wish everyone could see our family farm, just like those Illinois "Field Moms" the other day.

The first thing visitors learn is that we take health and safety seriously. We do it for our customers but we also do it for ourselves. My wife and I are raising three children at home. Putting them at risk is the very last thing we would ever do.

We grow about 3,500 acres of genetically modified crops each summer—a mix of corn and soybeans. If these plants and the food they produce were dangerous, we’d stop growing them. We don’t want to hurt anybody, least of all our own kids.

Our children are around GM crops all the time. They play near our fields, dig in our dirt, and ride their bikes alongside our plants. They also help out with farm chores. Finally, they eat food made with GM ingredients: Just about every day, the crops we grow on our farm go into the food our family eats.

I’m happy to report that our kids enjoy good health.

For our family, farming isn’t just an ordinary job. It’s a calling that requires humility and stewardship. Our crops supply the basic human need to eat. We do everything we can to make them safe and plentiful. Moreover, our agriculture is sustainable, in both the economic and environmental senses of the word—and we plan to sustain our farm for a long time. My father and my uncles brought me into the family farm. One day, when my children are old enough, I’d like for them to have the same opportunity.

We need to sustain our farm in another way: through education.

Two or three generations ago, lots of people knew a lot about farming because they farmed themselves or lived near those who did. Today, however, our society has become so good at growing crops that a small number of us can produce a huge abundance of food for the rest. In the developing world, urbanization—people moving from the countryside to the city—is one of the most powerful forces of the 21st century.

Much of this is positive and involves a search for economic opportunity, but there can be a downside as well. The more people move away from farms, the more vulnerable they become to rumors and propaganda about food production.

Facts and truth are the best antidotes. I welcome anyone to come and visit my farm. Anybody who drops by our place will learn that when they consume GM ingredients that trace back to American farms like ours; they’re eating what we feed our own children—the same safe and healthy food.

Brian Kelley grows corn and soybeans on a family farm with his father and uncles near Normal, Illinois. Brian is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

India’s PM Modi Can Help Farmers By Putting Science And Technology To Use

By Rajesh Kumar: Salem, India

The largest voter-turnout election in the history of the world offers the farmers of my country a remarkable opportunity to move into the 21st century.

More than half a billion of my fellow Indians finished voting last week. Narendra Modi will now be our Prime Minister, leading the Bharatiya Janata Party and its absolute majority in Parliament.

Modi and BJP prevailed for many reasons, from their pro-business outlook to public dissatisfaction with high inflation, slow growth, and widespread corruption under the previous government.

Farmers have a long list of complicated concerns: low crop productivity, many are still using primitive production practices and climate change will continue to challenge us. As a progressive Prime Minister, the single most important thing Modi can do to help India’s farmers is to spread scientific farming throughout the country so we can increase the yield of crops in a sustainable way.

"I am all for technology," these are the words that Modi said in March, according to the Telegraph newspaper of Calcutta. "We should not discard a technology that helps farmers. We must have faith in science. … We must put technology and science to use, with regulations, and add value to produce."

As an Indian farmer, I am hopeful these words represent the principles of Modi’s farm policy. If they do, it means that Indian farmers soon will enjoy more access to better crops—including the GM crops that a frustrating mix of scientific illiteracy and ideological agendas have kept just beyond our reach.

Modi knows the potential of GM crops. For 13 years, he was Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state in northwest India. Under his leadership, the state recorded the highest growth rate in agriculture. This was no small accomplishment: More than half of all the land in Gujarat is farmed. Cotton leads the way—and cotton is the one GM crop that India has permitted farmers to plant.

When Modi stepped into office in Gujarat, GM cotton was not available to anyone. Early in his tenure, however, New Delhi allowed its commercialization. As soon as farmers saw that it improved their yields and cut down their reliance on insecticides, they wanted to take advantage of it. Today, more than eight out of every ten cotton farmers in India use biotechnology. Nobody forced them to do it: They chose to adopt GM cotton because it makes sense.

GM crops have transformed farming everywhere they’ve been adopted, as the Green Revolution evolves into a Gene Revolution. Last month, a farmer somewhere in the northern hemisphere planted the world’s 4-billionth acre of GM crops, according to Truth about Trade & Technology, an American non-profit group that monitors agriculture statistics. This is a safe and sustainable technology, endorsed by scientific bodies and regulatory agencies around the globe.

India, however, has failed to participate fully in the Gene Revolution. Although our farmers may plant GM cotton, our political leaders up to now have refused to allow the commercialization of GM food crops like brinjal (known to Americans as eggplant).

As a result, India’s farmers don’t meet their full potential. I’m one of them: I grow brinjal on my 55-acre farm in southern India, along with other vegetables. If farmers like me could plant GM brinjal, with the scientific truth behind its benefits, we’d grow more food. This would improve the economies of rural areas and also fight the hunger and malnutrition that plagues our nation.

During his campaign, Modi sidestepped questions about GM brinjal. Even so, I’m confident that as Prime Minister, he will open India to more types of biotechnology. He won’t do it all at once—he has many other problems to tackle. Moreover, the forces of opposition, though profoundly misinformed, are strong.

Following his historic victory, Modi not only has the truth on his side—he also has the people on his side. He must encourage the research and development in university and bring them to the fields in short time by making changes in law, granting access to knowledge from around the world and collaborating with agri-related organizations.

I am raising my voice as a farmer for the use of science and technology for farmers benefit. I believe India enjoys its best chance yet to become a nation of modern farming. Modi, as our new leader, can guide us into the future and help get us there.

Rajesh Kumar farms 120 acres in two regions of India, using irrigation to grow brinjal, sweet corn, baby corn, tomatoes and other vegetables. He sells fresh produce directly to consumers through kiosks at several locations and runs a food processing unit for canning of vegetables. Mr. Kumar is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network and recipient of the 2012 TATT Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement award (www.truthabouttrade.org).

I have a big family—and between me, my kids, and my grandkids, we’re spread out across America. We live in Florida, California, Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas. We’re constantly traveling back and forth.

As we visit each other, we’re also preparing and sharing meals. Sometimes it feels like I spend as much time making trips to grocery stores as I do relaxing in homes!

Should food labels look different everywhere we go? Of course not. Americans need easy to read and understand standards that reveal pertinent information, no matter where we buy our food.

I’m a label reader. When my grandchildren are grocery shopping with me – whether it is 21 year old Kellee or 4 year old Faith – I’m often asked "why are you reading the label" or "what does this label mean"? I depend on accurate and reliable labels for nutritional information and assume that labeled food products are safe and in compliance with FDA standards. I don’t want labels to push me or my family away from safe and healthy food.

Unfortunately, a step in the wrong direction was taken this month when Vermont became the first state in the country to demand special labeling on food packages that contain genetically modified ingredients. Signed by Vermont’s Governor into law, the rules are due to take effect in two years.

If other states decide to go down that path, now we’re on the verge of a confusing and dysfunctional food-labeling system, with 50 sets of rules in our 50 states.

That’s 49 too many.

The food labels already approved by the Food and Drug Administration are pretty good. Soon they may become even better. In February, the FDA announced plans to fine-tune them.

The last thing we need are a bunch of legislators striking out on their own, thinking they can fix a system that isn’t broken.

Patchwork looks good on a quilt, but it doesn’t make sense for a regulatory regime. When it comes to food labels, we should expect consistency across state lines. My grandchildren in Houston should be able to understand food labels when they go to my local grocery store near Tampa Bay. Their shopping experience should not demand an act of decipherment.

At a recent White House event, First Lady Michelle Obama described the problem of poorly conceived food labels: "So you marched into the supermarket, you picked up a can or a box of something, you squinted at that little tiny label, and you were totally and utterly lost." She wasn’t talking about the threat of labels for GM food, but she might as well have been.

Vermont’s latest action undermines the clear, national standards we need. Other states may add to the chaos. The National Conference of State Legislatures counts 84 bills in 29 states involving GM food labels. Although voters in California, Oregon, and Washington State have rejected ballot initiatives to require special labels, more referenda may be on the way. At some point, one may succeed.

This is a recipe for bewilderment among consumers.

Moreover, these laws are bad on the merits. GM foods are safe and healthy. They don’t need warning labels, as organizations ranging from the American Medical Association (AMA) to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have said.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather entrust my food labels to the experts who work at the FDA and listen to the advice of the AMA and the NAS—and not to a few politicians in Vermont.

Perhaps the legislators who passed Vermont’s new law have good intentions. Just as likely, they’re responding to special interests. Vermont has more organic farmers per capita than any other state, according to The Economist. If consumers come to fear GM food because of special warning labels, organic farmers are hoping to sell more of what they grow for a premium.

Labels should educate, conveying reliable information rather than propaganda. We must honor their basic purpose, not let them become marketing devices for favored groups.

Vermont’s law will face a lawsuit, and plaintiffs will make several strong arguments against it, including the claim that it meddles with interstate commerce. Yet there’s no telling how judges will rule.

A bill in Congress offers a solution. Introduced last month, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act would make the FDA the final authority on labels for GMO food, preventing states from complicating matters. Its author is Rep. Mike Pompeo from Kansas, and the bill already enjoys bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans.

Food labels should serve consumers, not ideological agendas and special interests. Let’s keep labels simple, clear and understandable to all age groups and generations, regardless of where they shop for their food. We need a single standard that makes sense for everyone.

Carol Keiser is a wife, mother and grandmother who owns and operates cattle feeding operations in Kansas, Nebraska and Illinois. She volunteers as a Truth About Trade & Technology board member (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Although it’s headquartered in the United States, National Geographic is a global publication. For more than 25 years, I’ve read it here in India, where it has a good reputation. I still keep a few old issues because of their interesting articles and excellent photography.

I’m pleased to see that the magazine has launched a special series on "The Future of Food." As a farmer in a nation that struggles with food security, I spend a lot of my time thinking—and worrying—about this topic.

In the May issue, the editors of National Geographic describe their mission: "By 2050 we’ll need to feed two billion more people. This special eight-month series explores how we can do that—without overwhelming the planet."

Feeding the world may be the greatest challenge of our young century. For me, this is not a theoretical problem. Every day, I see the enormous problems where I live, in the village of Ulundhai in south India. It’s a crisis I witness with my own eyes.

I also recognize hidden opportunities. With the hope of contributing to the conversation that National Geographic has started, I would like to offer a few humble observations about soil health and technology.

First and foremost, we must sustain the fertility of the soil. Everything we grow depends upon its well-being. This is a big task, and it has plenty of components—including the defeat of illiteracy, which prevents too many developing country farmers from fertilizing their fields properly.

With healthy soil, we can begin to address the basic problems of the food supply. The Green Revolution transformed agriculture in India, but in recent years we’ve hit a plateau. Growth in food production has fallen behind growth in population. Hundreds of millions of my fellow Indians are hungry or malnourished; the state of India’s food-security is worsening by the year.

Thankfully, we have lots of room for improvement. Our yields are only a fraction of what farmers in developed countries routinely achieve. Simply catching up to much of the rest of the world will go a long way toward meeting India’s food-security demands.

In fact, we should be even more productive than leading agriculture nations. In the American Midwest, home to some of the richest soil in the world, most farmers grow only one crop per year. Not even the blackest earth will produce food when a white blanket of snow sits on top of it.

India doesn’t have this problem. Where I live, we never see snow—and we can grow multiple crops in a single year. I follow a three-crop rotation every year: rice or maize, followed by vegetables, followed by oil seeds and pulses.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we knew how to sustain the fertility of the soil and make the most of our potential.

The other vital tool is technology - the best seeds for the healthiest soil. It is clear that we need crop protection technologies and tools to narrow the vast gap in crop productivity between developed and developing countries. This includes access to genetically modified crops. Farmers in the United States and elsewhere can depend upon the unique ability of these plants to overcome the weeds and pests that thwart farmers everywhere.

National Geography seemed reluctant to discuss this essential option in its May issue. The lead article—"A Five-Step Plan to Feed the World"—said virtually nothing about GM crops. Yet they are the need of the hour, and National Geographic should use its prestige and expertise to combat the phony controversies and outright falsehoods that surround biotechnology.

I don’t grow GM crops on my 65-acre farm; however, I am aware that the aspect of GM crops for food and fibre production with emphasis on disease resistance and quality improvement need to be taken on a case by case basis to meet the needs of the Indian farmers. I would love to benefit from the disease resistance and yield increases that have transformed and improved agriculture wherever they’ve been adopted. Yet my country’s agriculture remains stuck in the 20th century, beset by political activists who fail to understand the science behind this safe technology.

Unfortunately, farming in India is widely considered a lowly occupation, which is the main reason for the low productivity of even the existing crops. I strongly feel we need to have more demonstration and training farms to create awareness about soil fertility and GM technology. It’s not the farmer who makes the food: Food is made by plants. I believe we need to learn that instead of subsidizing food supply for the people, the plants need subsidized food such as fertilizers and other inputs in order for them to produce the food needed for food security for the family and India.

As National Geographic continues its exploration of "The Future of Food," I hope that it will discover the solutions we all need.

R. Madhavan grows three different crops a year on his farm near Ulundhai Village, Tamil Nadu, India. Madhavan has several patents for farmer-friendly farm tools, conducts workshops that encourage entrepreneurs to take up agriculture as a profession and is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

United States President Barack Obama’s ringing endorsement of biotechnology in agriculture has the potential to inspire hearts and minds in Africa—and perhaps most especially here in Kenya, the birthplace of his father.

He has spoken favorably of biotech in the past, but his latest statement came on a most appropriate occasion: the dedication in April of a new statue in the U.S. Capitol honoring Norman Borlaug, the scientist who sparked the Green Revolution, a series of technological advances credited with saving a billion lives around the world through better food production.

"I am pleased to join in celebrating the life of your grandfather," wrote President Obama in a letter to Julie Borlaug. "I share his belief that investment in enhanced biotechnology is an essential component of the solution to some of our planet’s most pressing agricultural problems."

In Kenya—the birthplace and burial site of Barack Obama, Sr.—we see the problem of food insecurity. More than 1 million Kenyans go hungry each day, according to recent estimates. The problem is worse in other African nations, where more than 230 million people go hungry. That’s one out of every five people on our continent. The pressure to feed them only will increase. Demographers expect our population to double by 2050.

So we aren’t growing enough food right now, and we’re going to have to grow a lot more soon.

Like most Kenyans, I admire President Obama and believe he is a good leader who supports decency and democracy. My countrymen take pride in his presidency, if for no other reason than his Kenyan roots. Although he came to Kenya when he was a senator, he has not yet come here as president—and we all look forward to a visit before he leaves office.

President Obama recognizes that the Green Revolution must evolve into the Gene Revolution. Yet many African governments, including mine in Nairobi, do not yet share this view.

Perhaps this is about to change. A few days ago, a task force convened by Health Cabinet Secretary James Macharia heard scientists and researchers present compelling evidence for the adoption of GM crops. (Readers can follow some of the conversation at #GMTaskforceHearing on Twitter.)

I’m on the front lines of Kenyan food production. Like so many farmers in the North Rift, I’ve just planted maize and, due lack of rain, it’s withering because we used conventional seed as none of us have access to GM seeds. We’re going to spend another year failing to meet our potential, with our fields suffering from afflictions such as climate change and maize lethal necrosis disease, which is as deadly as it sounds.

Kenya’s and Africa’s food-security problems have many sources. Yet one of the most basic solutions is simple: Farmers should be able to use the best crop technology. A recent study by the International Food Policy Research Institute says that if smallholder farmers in Africa were to gain access to genetically modified crops, they could improve their yields by as much as 29 percent.

In other words, if the ordinary farmers of Kenya and its neighbors were allowed to enjoy the same technologies as the farmers who are President Obama’s constituents, we’d be well on our way to meeting the challenge of feeding our people.

This is not a scientific challenge, but a political one. The science surrounding GM crops is well established. Not only are these plants safe to grow and consume, they’re even better than conventional crops because they allow farmers to produce more food on less land by defeating weeds, pests, climate, and diseases.

As I write these words, a farmer somewhere in the northern hemisphere is planting the world’s 4-billionth acre of GM crops, according to data compiled by Truth About Trade & Technology, an American non-profit group.

This is a remarkable milestone. Most of the progress has come from breadbasket countries where GM crops are widely used, such as the United States, Argentina, Brazil, India, and Canada.

Burkina Faso, Egypt, South Africa, and Sudan are the only African countries to have adopted GM crops. Most others, including Kenya, have resisted this technology. Their governments have succumbed to the irrational fears that have caused much of Europe to oppose GM food.

The time has come to move forward. Kenya must begin by lifting its political ban on imports of GM food and permit the commercialization of GM crops as supported by science. Our Agriculture Cabinet Secretary Felix Koskei recently told journalists, "As a ministry, we have no problems with GMOs."

President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto have always alluded to their vision and support for expanded agricultural production for food security. They should lead Kenya into adoption of the policies that President Obama supports in his own country. Let’s listen to this wise son of Kenya.

Gilbert Arap Bor is a small-scale farmer and founder-chairman of Chepkatet Farmers Co-op Society in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya. He also teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus. Mr. Bor is the 2011 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

I’ve heard so many misguided, crazy comments about farming over the years that I’ve almost become immune to them. Does it make sense to try to correct every opinion of every ill-informed person?

Yet a recent online column by Deirdre Imus—wife of the radio shock-jock Don Imus—got it totally wrong and I couldn’t let it go unanswered. She declared war on crop-protection products: the fungicides, herbicides, and pesticides that guard our food from fungus, weeds, and bugs.

"Pesticides are used to protect crops from potentially destructive infestations," she wrote. "It would be great if there were something equally as powerful to protect humans from the potentially destructive effects of pesticides."

What we really need is something to defend us from the misinformed ideas of Deirdre Imus.

Crop protection products are one of agriculture’s greatest innovations, allowing us to grow more food than ever before. When applied properly, they are safe for both farmers and consumers. And if they were suddenly to disappear from the farmer’s tool box, we’d face a global famine.

That grim fact became clear during a recent presentation by Leonard P. Gianessi of CropLife Foundation. A world without pesticides, he said, immediately would suffer a 25-percent reduction in the planet’s three most fundamental crops: corn, rice, and wheat.

The good news for the United States is that we’d probably survive this blow. We’d make up for the losses by halting our exports.

Others wouldn’t fare so well. Consider Norway, a country with a short growing season in northern Europe. Right now, it imports about half its food. Even if these imports were cut off, its farmers probably could supply their fellow Norwegians with a basic diet—but only if they’re allowed to use pesticides, as they are now.

Without crop protection, however, the Norwegians would suffer mightily: About 20 percent of the population could not be fed.

In China, with its population of more than 1 billion people today, the problem would be much worse. Without pesticides, its rice harvests would drop by two-thirds and its wheat harvests by half. China would "undergo famine if pesticides were not used," warned a recent report from the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture.

In other words, crop protection products protect us not just from weeds and pests, but also from human catastrophe.

When I began to farm with my father and brother more than 50 years ago, we hoped to grow about 80 or 90 bushels of corn per acre—and that’s only if we fought the weeds with everything we had. I drove a row-crop cultivator across our fields, turning over the soil and hoping to cover about 20 acres on a good day.

On a lousy day, I’d cover much less ground, getting stuck in thistle patches and stopping constantly to dig out clumps of grass. It was miserable work—especially when the weather was hot and the bugs were bad—but it also represented our best hope to defeat the weeds that wanted to choke the life from our crops. We were organic farmers.

Today, we expect to grow 200 bushels of corn per acre, largely due to advances in crop protection. I still have a cultivator, but it’s been sitting in my shed, untouched for more than two decades.

Farmers need more crop protection, not less. I’m looking forward to a new generation of products that are even more effective than the ones we use now. I also hope that Africa takes up the technology, so it can meet its potential as a farming continent.

So what would be gained if pesticides and herbicides were to vanish from the United States, says Gianessi? Jobs. Only one thing could prevent massive yield losses: 70 million of us would have to take to the fields, squatting down on our hands and knees to uproot weeds. We’d have to turn our farms into the equivalent of gigantic community gardens.

The hours would be long, the work hard, and the pay poor. Something tells me that Deirdre Imus would not like this kind of labor. Nor would I. I’ll keep the good stuff and we’ll all enjoy the benefits.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

President Obama’s trip to Japan is already a missed opportunity—and Congress deserves a share of the blame.

The White House had hoped to use the president’s visit to Tokyo this week to announce a breakthrough in trade talks, as President Obama embarks on a four-nation tour of Asia. Now it appears that won’t happen: "A stalemate continues," said Japanese economics minister Akira Amari, according to Reuters.

Everybody knew progress would be tough: The United States and Japan are already close trading partners, and bringing us closer together will involve hard choices on agriculture (for Japan) and cars and trucks (for the United States). So the sluggish pace of these negotiations is no surprise.

Yet Americans should demand success.

The benefits of a Trans-Pacific Partnership are enormous. If the United States and Japan complete this trade pact with ten other Pacific Rim nations, global exports could grow by more than $300 billion per year by 2025, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. And the United States would enjoy a big chunk of this commerce: $123 billion.

That would translate into a lot of jobs in the factories and on the farms of the United States.

None of it will happen, however, if the president lacks Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), a legislative tool that allows the administration to bargain with other countries and then submit trade agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote. Foreign governments want to work out deals with the U.S. Trade Representative—not with the U.S. Trade Representative plus 535 members of Congress, all of them with their own agendas and the power to offer amendments.

Since the advent of TPA in the 1970s, every president has enjoyed this tool for at least a portion of his time in office, with the exception of President Obama. TPA last expired in 2007 and Congress has refused to renew it.

Partisanship plays a big role. In the past, Democrat-controlled Congresses have refused to approve TPA for Republican presidents and Republican-controlled Congresses have refused to approve TPA for Democratic presidents. On top of that, many Democrats are outright protectionists: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, publicly announced he opposes TPA for President Obama.

Whatever the motives of individual lawmakers, the collective failure of Congress to approve TPA is now hurting America’s ability to talk trade with Japan. Earlier this month, Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican who was President Bush’s trade ambassador, told the Wall Street Journal that "Japan is reluctant to make big concessions because of concerns that Congress could end up asking for more later."

In other words, Japan doesn’t want to make a deal that Congress might scuttle through legislative trickery.

This is precisely the problem TPA is designed to resolve.

The beauty of TPA is that it frees the executive branch to negotiate with foreign governments while also preserving the authority of Congress to approve or disapprove of the result. It just prevents Congress from messing up a sensible deal with amendments meant to serve special interests.

Here in the state of Washington, we need TPA because we need TPP: Foreign trade is a key to our profitability, especially for those of us who farm. We export huge amounts of apples, cherries, pears, wheat, and wine to Asia.

Without these exports, many of us wouldn’t be able to farm at all.

I grow alfalfa seed, and between 30 and 40 percent of it goes abroad. What’s more, the alfalfa seed I sell to American producers grows a crop with a big export market. Millions of metric tons of alfalfa hay ship out of Portland, Seattle, and other ports for overseas customers. Our most dependable buyer is Japan.

So when I look at the possibility of the United States and Japan reaching an agreement on TPP, I see nothing but economic opportunity—and I’m disappointed to watch politics get in the way of jobs for Americans.

When things go wrong in the world, members of Congress love to blame the White House. In this case, things aren’t going right—and Congress has the ability to help them go better. We’re all paying a price for its refusal.

Mark Wagoner is a third generation farmer in Walla Walla County, Washington where they raise alfalfa seed. Mark volunteers as a Board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

A recently released report on climate change from the United Nations contains the usual warnings about the future, from melting polar caps to chronic heat waves. It also emphasizes the threat of less food on a planet with more people.

"This is a wake-up call for the agriculture sector," says Craig Hanson of the World Resources Institute, in a New York Times account of the forecast from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

At least one of the IPCC’s claims is remarkably specific: Climate change already has depressed corn yields by 1 percent.

This may or may not be true. I haven’t crunched the numbers and won’t dispute them. My personal experience, however, suggests that the best way forward lies through advances in technology and letting farmers have access to them.

I’ve farmed my whole life, and I’ve done it professionally since 1970. I’m blessed to work in central Illinois, which contains some of the world’s most fertile soil. In a couple of weeks, I’ll begin a new season of planting corn and soybeans across a little more than 3,000 acres.

When I started to farm more than four decades ago, we hoped that each acre of corn would yield close to 150 bushels but we often topped out at 135. The most productive fields—the record-setting ones on other farms—might inch past 200 bushels per acre.

Today, anything less than 200 bushels per acre is a disappointment for me. Under the right conditions, our top fields generate 230 bushels per acre. I haven’t touched 300 bushels per acre, but several farmers I know have and I hope to get there eventually.

So we’ve come a long way. If my farming in 2014 produces a result that I would have regarded as excellent in 1970, I’ll consider it a poor harvest.

What explains the improvement? The main factor is seed technology. Scientists know a lot more about plant genetics today and they’ve used their knowledge to turn out excellent seeds that grow into healthy plants. Since the 1990s, we’ve also taken advantage of biotechnology and genetic modification. Every year, we upgrade our ability to fight weeds, pests, and drought.

Other technologies also have mattered. Our equipment helps us cover more fields in less time than ever before. We’re also planting individual seeds with incredible precision, allowing us to make the most of the soil and its nutrients.

Perhaps the IPCC is correct and small variations in the weather have put negative pressure on our ability to grow crops. My own farming, however, suggests that technology has pushed hard in the other direction, more than compensating for the problem.

The lesson is obvious: Even in a world of changing climates, we must continue to develop new agriculture technologies that will allow us to grow more food on less land as we adapt to changing conditions. As a corollary, we must make sure that farmers are able to access these technologies—and that our regulations rely on sound science rather than the political fear mongering that so often plagues innovation.

Shortly after the IPCC report came out, Eduardo Porter of the New York Times invoked the name of Thomas Malthus, the 18th-centry economist who warned about population growth and resource depletion. Malthus is one of those names that many of us dimly recall from history class, and we associate the word "Malthusian" with famine and death.

Does climate change really point to an era of Malthusian misery?

A new biography shows that we’ve misunderstood the man. In "Malthus: The Life and Legacies of an Untimely Prophet," published last week by Oxford University Press, author Robert J. Mayhew points out that Malthus was optimistic about the human future. He worried about hunger. Yet he was also a clergyman who thought that our God-given powers of reason would help us solve problems and find balance with the world’s resources.

As we strive for food security in the 21st century, we must confront our challenges rather than despair over them. I’m hopeful that new technologies will help farmers continue to adapt to changing conditions. We must remember that success is a choice—and that even Thomas Malthus would be on our side, cheering us on.

Daniel Kelley grows corn and soybeans on a family farm near Normal, IL. He volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Last week, I found myself sitting in an auditorium in Brussels—and listening to Europeans applaud genetically modified crops.

Yet it was no fantasy. I was at the 7thForum for the Future of Agriculture —a one-day event by and for European farmers. Over a thousand were in attendance. There were a few African farmers, too, but if there were any Americans beside myself in the room, I didn’t meet them.

Speakers who wanted to win a favorable reaction from the audience just had to put in a good word for GM foods. Biotechnology was a ready applause line.

This doesn’t mean the debate over GM foods in Europe is done. Acceptance still faces a significant amount of political and cultural resistance. But the global scientific community now agrees that biotechnology is an essential part of the solution to food and nutritional insecurity in the 21st century.

We’re moving in the right direction, just at a slower pace than most of us would like. Fortunately, the next step forward is clearly marked.

GM foods are a subset of a larger issue that separates the United States and Europe: regulatory harmonization. This is the push to create common standards across international markets, so that product approvals on one side of the Atlantic receive the benefit of the doubt on the other side.

In other words, our regulations should work in tandem rather than in competition.

Consider the case of a European blueberry producer who spoke at the Forum for Agriculture. He noted the growing American appetite for blueberries. Yet U.S. regulations get in the way of his sales. They delay his deliveries so much that his blueberries spoil before they reach American consumers.

Would you hesitate to eat a bowl of blueberries in a Paris café? Of course not: The berries are perfectly safe, and we know it. Blueberries grown in Europe already meet adequate standards set by European authorities. Yet as they try to move to our markets, the additional rules at our ports and borders cause slowdowns and create losers: producers who can’t sell what they grow and consumers who can’t buy from alternative sources.

This is a problem worth fixing.

The benefits of regulatory harmonization would flow both ways. Europe currently exports more food to the United States than vice versa: more than $16 billion per year compared to nearly $10 billion per year. There are many reasons for this discrepancy, but regulatory barriers are a major one. Sensible rules will lead to more sales for American farmers and ranchers.

Bureaucrats on both sides of the Atlantic will have to forfeit a bit of regulatory turf. Yet the potential payoff is huge. If we can find a way to make our policies work together, rather than against each other, we’ll not only make life easier for producers and consumers in our own countries, but we’ll also have a chance to set sensible standards for the entire world.

By reconciling their regulatory differences, the United States and Europe will be in a strong position to bring down regulatory trade barriers in other nations. The movement of goods and services across borders would improve everywhere.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) talks between the United States and Europe finished their fourth round last month and a fifth round will begin shortly. Regulatory harmonization will be on the table soon. If the negotiations stay on schedule, they could strike a deal by the end of the year, forging a pact that improves ties between economies whose daily trade with each other is already worth $3 billion.

Progress on regulatory harmonization won’t cure Europe of its anti-biotech madness, but it would begin to treat the hidden protectionism that is one of its underlying causes.

And it would provide aid and comfort to our allies at the Forum for the Future of Agriculture, who would like to stop clapping for GM crops in their conference halls and to start growing them on their farms.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

As I begin to plant my own crops this week, I know that somewhere in the northern hemisphere this month, a farmer will put a seed in the ground—and the world will have its 4-billionth acre of genetically modified crops.

Perhaps it will happen in my country of Spain, which is Europe’s leader in GM farming. We can only guess at the location of this milestone achievement, let alone the farmer who will reach it. Yet we know for certain that the great moment will come about halfway through this month.

Truth about Trade & Technology, a non-profit group based in the United States, has tracked the world’s biotech-crop acreage for years. It posts its findings in the upper right-hand corner of its website (www.truthabouttrade.org) with a special counter that constantly updates, using official reports and independent research.

How big is 4 billion acres? It’s an area so vast that Spain could fit into it almost 32 times. It’s more than one and a half times as large as all of Europe. It’s nearly as big as South America.

That’s a lot of acreage.

There’s a lesson in all of this: GM crops are good for farmers, good for consumers, and good for the environment.

Farmers like me choose to plant GM crops because they work. We have found them safer and easier to use. They also produce more food than so-called conventional crops.

With 4 billion acres of cumulative biotech acres now planted globally, of course, we may want to reconsider the definition of "conventional."

Although GM crops may be common, they are anything but ordinary. They are extraordinary plants that allow the worlds farmers to grow more food on less land.

That’s why I started to grow GM corn. Where I live—in the Ebro Valley of northern Spain, right beside the Pyrenees—we have a serious problem with the European corn borer. This pest drills into corn stalks, making them weak and barely able to stand. When the wind blows, it knocks down the corn. And the wind can blow so hard here that we have a special name for it: "the cierzo."

When corn lies on the ground, of course, it is impossible to harvest.

GM corn, however, carries a natural resistance to the corn borer and we don’t have to spray our fields with insecticide. The bugs leave it alone. So when the cierzo strikes, our corn stands tall. Best of all, we are obtaining better yields.

Biotechnology lets me raise two crops per year. Right now, I’m planting barley and peas. I’ll harvest them in June and then replant my fields with corn, without tillage. Corn that starts in June doesn’t have as much time to grow, so its stalks are thinner and more vulnerable to corn borers and high winds.

When I plant crops that are genetically modified, however, they grow strong and we can harvest two crops rather than just one. We’re doing more with less. Food is more affordable. So biotechnology contributes to the spread of sustainable agriculture—environmentally and economically sustainable agriculture.

My only regret about biotechnology is that we don’t have more of it. Although we grow corn that can defeat the corn borer, the European Union won’t let us have access to varieties of biotechnology that would help our crops to beat other threats, including weeds, rootworm, and drought.

In much of the western hemisphere—the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina—farmers take these characteristics for granted. They grow GM crops every day, and they’re a big part of the reason why biotechnology has just hit the 4-billion mark.

In time, I think the EU will change its ways. We currently import a good deal of our food, and much of it comes from GM crops. I do not believe Europe can continue to import food forever, if we are going to continue to be rich countries. We must increase our food production and Europe’s farmers must have access to GM technology to achieve this goal.

I’m hopeful that by the time a farmer plants the 5-billionth acre of GM crops, probably within the next three years, Europeans will have opened their minds to the potential of these amazing plants and will allow us to catch up with the rest of the world.

Jose Luis Romeo, a fourth generation family farmer, grows peas, barley, corn and wine grapes in northern Spain, near the Pyrenees. Jose is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Norman Borlaug is my hero—and he’s a hero to a billion of my countrymen here in India as well.

This week, we honor Borlaug’s centenary: He was born on March 25, 1914 in Cresco, Iowa. Before he died 95 years later, in 2009, he became the father of the "Green Revolution," which transformed agriculture, especially in developing nations. He even won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

I’m old enough to remember what life was like in the 1960s, before India benefitted from the Green Revolution. We had plenty of farmland, and yet we still needed to import a huge amount of food. Sadly, we couldn’t grow enough to feed our own people. A few experts predicted mass starvation.

Then came Borlaug, teaching us how to make the most of modern technology. Our farmers gained access to high-yielding grains and hybridized seeds. We adopted synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, improved our irrigation, and updated our management practices. In a single generation, we moved from primitive to modern.

I am of the strong opinion that the Green Revolution not only drove away hunger but also helped increase the literate population, increased the proportion of healthy people, increased the average life span of Indians, helped us to develop in other sectors too because of higher literacy rates.

Today, in the aftermath of the Green Revolution, our population has more than doubled in size. It now tops 1 billion people. Rapid urbanization has led to the loss of huge amounts of farmland.

It sounds like a recipe for disaster: More mouths to feed and less land for crops. Yet today we’re better at feeding ourselves than ever before.

We haven’t solved all of our problems. Malnutrition remains a deadly scourge. But it’s less of a scourge than it once was.

We owe it all to the Green Revolution. And that means we owe it all to Borlaug. According to one estimate, more than a quarter of the world’s wheat calories derive from Borlaug’s innovations. Some demographers claim that a billion people are alive today because of him.

I always wanted to meet Borlaug but never did. I came close in 2005: He was giving a speech in Chennai, a city not too far from my farm. Unfortunately, I was unwell at the time and missed my chance. Last fall, however, I traveled to the World Food Prize in Des Moines and participated in a panel discussion moderated by Julie Borlaug, his granddaughter. At long last, I was able to pay my respects to the Borlaug family.

This week, we’re discussing Borlaug’s legacy at village meetings and on radio programs across India. Younger Indians must learn how much they owe to this remarkable biologist.

Sometimes I wonder what Borlaug would say today, if he were still with us. Here’s what I think he would tell the farmers of India:

"The Green Revolution helped you achieve self sufficiency. Now you face even bigger tests. Your arable land continues to shrink. Your water resources are depleting. Your population keeps growing. Climate change looms as a threat. Many of your children have abandoned the farm for the city."

Those are the problems. Then he would describe a solution:

"You must be ready and willing to accept new technologies, striving to grow more food on less land. You have the potential to achieve. I have seen your strength during the Green Revolution."

He might also have a message for the government of India:

"You cannot rest on your laurels. In agriculture, conditions always change—and you must be ready to change with them. That means you must make wise decisions guided by sound science rather than raw emotion. For the sake of your population, which continues to grow, you must make pragmatic choices that allow farmers to do more."

The father of the Green Revolution was an early supporter of the Gene Revolution—the movement in agriculture to use the powers of biotechnology to help us grow more food. We’ve already seen the initial benefits of genetic modification, especially in the areas of pest and weed resistance. Soon we’ll see more, as Borlaug’s successors learn how to develop plants that can survive droughts and floods. They’ll also apply what they know to different varieties of food, such as brinjal.

The world may never see another Norman Borlaug, but we can choose to learn the lesson of his heroic life: If farmers and governments are open to new ideas, we will meet the agricultural challenges of our time.

Mr. V Ravichandran owns a 60 acre farm at Poongulam Village in Tamil Nadu, India where he grows rice, sugar cane, cotton and pulses (small grains). Mr. Ravichandran is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network and is the 2013 recipient of the Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award (www.truthabouttrade.org).

The whole world is watching events unfold in Ukraine—and here in Poland, we’re paying especially close attention.

Ukraine is our neighbor. We share a common border of 535 km. It not only separates our two nations, but also marks the eastern edge of the European Union. From my farm north of Warsaw, I know that developments in Ukraine can influence life on this side of the line.

One of our top concerns involves Ukraine’s food security. Just about everyone, in fact, has a stake in helping Ukraine realize its full potential as a granary for Europe and beyond.

As Kiev pries loose from domination by Moscow—and confronts Russia’s potential annexation of Crimea—Poland is doing its part to bring stability. Our hospitals have been treating people injured on the Maidan, the main square in Ukraine’s capital. We’re also organizing assistance in the form of food, medicine, and clothing. We’re even preparing for a humanitarian crisis, setting up camps that can house thousands of refugees.

These are short-term measures. In the long run, the people of Poland and elsewhere must make sure that Ukrainian farmers can grow their crops and export them, for the sake of both Ukraine and its customers.

Right now, Ukraine is the world’s third-largest exporter of corn (behind the United States and Brazil) and the fifth-largest exporter of wheat. It remains to be seen how the recent political turmoil affects this year’s shipments, but early indications suggest that Ukraine will continue to sell plenty of food. Even Russia’s takeover of Sevastopol, a Crimean port on the Black Sea, might not have much of an impact, say experts. Food can flow through Odessa and other ports whose status within a sovereign Ukraine is not in dispute.

Yet there’s no telling what the coming months may bring. The EU relies on food from Ukraine, and any reduction in shipments will cause prices to jump. For Europeans, this would represent an aggravation rather than a crisis, but that may not be true in other places.

Egypt is also a leading buyer of Ukrainian food, especially of wheat—and a cutoff could have major geopolitical implications. The tumult of the Arab Spring has many sources, but one of the most important involves food security. Political upheavals from Tunisia to Syria have roots in food shortages.

Desperate people do desperate things, and the Middle East would not benefit from more unrest.

Even before meeting this foreign demand, of course, the new government in Kiev must make sure that Ukraine feeds itself. This is nothing to take for granted: In the 1930s, as the Soviet Union forced farms to collectivize, it triggered a massive famine in Ukraine. Some 7 million people died in this manmade catastrophe. Many Ukrainians regard the incident as an act of genocide.

It’s hard to imagine the same thing happening again today, but then human affairs are full of catastrophes that nobody foresaw. We ignore the lessons of history at our peril.

Poland never suffered through a famine like the one in Ukraine, but my own family can point to hardship at the hands of the Soviet Union’s bad farm policies. When I was a child, my father resisted collectivization, as did many other Poles. Most of my life would pass before we finally won our freedom in 1989. I still remember helping the local election commission count votes through a sleepless night.

Ukrainians want much the same thing today: They seek a country free from the meddling of Vladimir Putin’s Russia and tied ever more closely to the EU and the rest of the world.

Their country is blessed with rich farmland that is the envy of other nations. Yet nothing guarantees that this resource will produce as much as it should. Success will require wise leaders who put fertile land into the hands of private farmers, attack corruption, invest in machinery, restore irrigation, and permit access to new seeds and technologies. Ultimately, Ukraine needs social peace and territorial integrity.

I look forward to the day when we can stop paying attention to Ukraine—a day when it’s out of the news and on the road to freedom and prosperity.

Roman Warzecha grows maize, sweet corn, rape and cherries on a family farm in the Mazowia region of Poland. Mr. Warzecha leads maize and triticale research at Poland’s Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization (IHAR) and is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

The Panama Canal almost was the Nicaragua Canal. A little more than a century ago, the United States came close to building "the path between the seas" to the north of Panama’s narrow isthmus.

If an ambitious Nicaraguan politician and Chinese billionaire have their way, however, a new waterway may yet connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It would become "the largest civil-engineering and construction project in the world," reports Jon Lee Anderson in the March 10 edition of the New Yorker.

I don’t believe the Panama Canal will face a competitor in Nicaragua anytime soon, if ever. But competition is healthy, and perhaps the mere threat of a massive Nicaragua Canal will lead to the completion of necessary improvements in the Panama Canal. Better yet, maybe it will encourage urgent repairs to our own transportation infrastructure here in the United States.

The Panama Canal is of course a modern marvel and this is its centennial year. An enormous accomplishment, it took a decade to complete. More than 5,000 workers died, mostly from disease. This was a costly toll, but their sacrifice made possible a great hub of global commerce that has served the interests of nations, producers and consumers throughout our hemisphere.

For many years, however, the Panama Canal has required an upgrade—a widening and deepening that will allow it to support the world’s largest ships. The eight-year project began in 2007.

Two months ago, cost overruns of $1.6 billion put the venture at risk. Work actually stopped for a couple of weeks as the builders and the canal authority argued over prices. They appear to have settled their differences, though the final completion of the canal’s new locks may be delayed from 2015 to 2016, according to the Wall Street Journal.

In the world of gargantuan construction projects, that’s not much of a setback—and the success of an upgraded Panama Canal provides a strong inducement to finish. If this isn’t enough of an incentive, the prospect of a brand-new canal in Nicaragua also should keep the canal’s improvements more or less on schedule.

Wang Jing, a secretive Chinese financier, believes he can build a huge canal across Nicaragua in five years and for just $40 billion. That may sound wildly optimistic, but Wang seems pretty serious about the endeavor. He has already spent $100 million on feasibility studies, reports the New Yorker.

Last September, Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega signed a formal canal concession with Wang’s company. So Wang looks to have cleared the political hurdles, which of course can be as tricky as the technical ones.

A canal across Nicaragua nevertheless poses a number of serious challenges. Although it would take advantage of rivers and a 40-mile-wide lake, it would be more than three times the length of the Panama Canal. Its locks would have to raise vessels 108 feet above sea level, compared to 85 feet for the Panama Canal.

There’s a reason why the Panama Canal is in Panama: It’s a better route.

Yet a fully modern canal across Nicaragua might enjoy certain advantages. Right now, the Panama Canal is expanding to catch up to the current generation of container ships and supertankers. Even bigger ships may be on the way. The Panama Canal’s expensive improvements could turn obsolete shortly after they open for business.

The talk of a Nicaragua Canal is "definitely a call of attention to Panama," says a port-management expert in Anderson’s article.

It should be a call of attention to the United States as well. Our own waterways barely accommodate the ships that take American-made and grown products to customers in other nations. Just as we need an efficient system of highways so that people can drive around the country, we need an efficient system of locks and dams to let us move our goods quickly to their destinations.

It’s hard to imagine the Panama Canal competing against a canal in Nicaragua. Yet American exports compete against the products of other nations everyday—and we must make sure they enjoy every advantage we can give them.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

"This is a huge deal," said First Lady Michelle Obama at the White House last week. "You as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into a grocery store, pick an item off the shelf, and tell whether it’s good for your family."

Mrs. Obama is absolutely correct, and her remarks came at an event calling for revised nutrition labels on food packages. The Food and Drug Administration now will seek comments from the public. Any changes are probably at least two years away.

In the meantime, however, Congress may want to take an extra step and stop states from creating a crazy-patch collection of rules for the labeling of food with genetically modified ingredients. The first lady didn’t mention GMOs in her talk, but applying her principles to a rising controversy would solve a problem before it hurts farmers, families, and consumers.

Biotechnology has revolutionized agriculture, allowing farmers to grow more nutritious food on less land than ever before—a trend that’s good for families worried about their checkbooks and good for everyone who’s concerned about the environment. We eat food derived from genetically modified crops everyday. Groups from the American Medical Association to the World Health Organization have endorsed their use.

As with so many technologies, however, this one has attracted passionate opposition from a small number of professional protestors. They’re determined to wage a campaign of misinformation against GMOs, and their latest scheme is to persuade individual states to require warning labels on products that include genetically modified ingredients. One of these activists told Politico last month that he expects 30 state legislatures to weigh labeling proposals this year.

Their plan is to confuse consumers, frightening them away from safe and healthy choices.

They’ve adopted this ploy because they know they can’t win through the legislative process on the federal level. Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont proposed a law to let states require labels on food with GMO ingredients. Majorities of both Democrats and Republican opposed the measure. It went down to defeat by a vote of 71 to 27.

In December, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California—one of the senators who favored Sanders’ bad idea—became so frustrated by the failure that she called on President Obama just to ignore the will of Congress. "Use your authority to require labeling" of GMOs, she demanded in a letter to the president.

That’s unlikely to happen—not after so many of the president’s fellow Democrats came down on the side of common sense.

Voters have done the same. Last year in Washington State, they rejected a ballot initiative to require labels of food with GMOs. A year before in California, they voted down another pointless labeling law. In both referenda, voters came to understand that labels simply would boost food bills without delivering any benefits. They also recognized a simple fact: Anyone who wants to avoid GMOs, for whatever reason, simply can shop for organic foods, which don’t rely on genetic modification.

Yet the enemies of biotechnology won’t give up—and they’ve already experienced a bit of success. In Connecticut and Maine, lawmakers have approved labels for GM foods, though these rules won’t take effect until other states in New England join them (and so far none have). Activists are also talking about pushing an initiative in Oregon, or perhaps Colorado.

So we may be at a tipping-point moment. It seems increasingly likely that although voters and lawmakers will continue to support biotechnology, the anti-GMO activists will continue to attempt to break through in a handful of states.

This is silly. We shouldn’t have 50 sets of complicated food regulations, subject to the whims of sparring special-interest groups.

Last week, Mrs. Obama described a common conundrum: Many people, she said, had "marched into the supermarket, you picked up a can or a box of something, you squinted at that little tiny label, and you were totally and utterly lost."

Congress should put an end to this problem before it starts, for the sake of farmers who need modern agricultural tools and consumers who seek reasonable assurances that they’re buying safe and healthy food.

John Rigolizzo, Jr. is a fifth generation farmer, raising fresh vegetables and field corn in southern New Jersey. The family farm produces for retail and wholesale markets. John is a volunteer board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

I used to be skeptical of GM crops. Then I saw what they can do. Now I’m a true believer: Biotechnology is a boon to farmers everywhere, most especially in the developing world.

My farm, Eve’s Eden, is in South Africa, on 539 hectares. About half of my land is arable. Beef cattle graze on the rest.

I went into farming in 2007, after my country’s government distributed land to previously disadvantaged groups. That year, I planted 100 hectares of corn. But pests ravaged my crops. I managed to harvest only a little more than two metric tons per hectare—a big disappointment. The same thing happened the next year. So I quit planting and devoted my land entirely to cattle.

Three years ago, however, I learned how biotechnology protects crops from pests. This was an intriguing idea, but my earlier experience had turned me against raising crops of any type. I didn’t want another letdown.

I planted GM corn in a test plot of two hectares and hoped for the best.

The result was astonishing. The pests stayed away. Those two hectares yielded 14 metric tons of corn. All of a sudden, my land’s productivity had tripled. I grew more food on less land.

Now I’m sold on GM crops, as are millions of other farmers. The latest annual report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) has the details: Last year, I was one of the 18 million farmers in 27 countries who planted GM crops on 1.6 billion hectares—an area of land equivalent in size to one and a half Chinas.

A particular line from the report’s press release resonated with me: "Nearly 100 percent of farmers who try biotech crops continue to plant them year after year."

That sums up my experience: I tried biotech crops and loved them, and now I can’t imagine farming any other way.

One year ago, ISAAA reported that for the first time, farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America planted slightly more GM crops than farmers in North America and Europe—in other words, the developing world outpaced the industrial world in utilizing this technology. The 2013 report shows that this gap has continued to widen, with developing countries now accounting for 54 percent of GM-crop plantings.

All signs suggest that this trend will continue. In 2013, Bangladesh approved GM brinjal (also known as eggplant), an act that India and the Philippines hope to follow. Indonesia authorized GM sugarcane for food and Panama endorsed the planting of GM corn. In Africa, seven countries are on the verge of commercializing GM crops: Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, and Uganda.

This is no surprise to me, as I’ve seen the benefits of GM crops with my own eyes. Yet my story is just an anecdote. Data drives the ISAAA report: Between 1996 and 2012, GM crops have generated 377 million metric tons of food that simply wouldn’t exist without biotechnology. Farmers also have eliminated about half a billion kilograms of pesticide from the environment and conserved 123 million hectares of potential farmland.

These benefits only will grow in the future.

Biotechnology already is helping farmers defeat pests. Within a few years, it will help us resist drought—another constant scourge to those who work the land.

Agriculture always has been a risky business. With the looming threat of climate change, however, it seems riskier than ever.

For the last three years, my region of South Africa has suffered dearly from a lack of moisture. Many frustrated smallholders have quit farming.

We need a solution—and biotechnology may provide it soon.

In the United States last year, farmers planted 50,000 hectares of drought-tolerant corn, according to the ISAAA. They’ll probably grow even more this summer.

Drought-tolerant corn will reach Africa in 2017, says the ISAAA report. When it does, the effect will be immediate and profound: "Drought is the biggest constraint to maize productivity in Africa, on which 300 million Africans depend for survival."

Biotechnology is making the world better—and we’re only beginning to understand and appreciate how it can help us in the future.

Eve Ntseoane is an emerging farmer, raising maize and beef cattle in Kaalfontein, Emfuleni Municipality in Gauteng Province, South Africa. Eve is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network(www.truthabouttrade.org).

"Today in America……a farmer prepared for the spring after the strongest five-year stretch of farm exports in our history."

"And when ninety-eight percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment, and open new markets to new goods stamped "Made in the USA."

President Barack Obama, 2014 State of the Union address

In public, President Obama talks up the value of free trade. Unfortunately, he doesn’t where it may matter most: in private.

This failure comes at a bad moment, as trade ministers prepare to gather in Singapore on February 22 to discuss the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a pact that promises to improve the flow of goods and services around the Pacific Rim. By refusing to push for trade at every opportunity, President Obama threatens American job creation and economic growth.

I live in the middle of the country, in the landlocked state of Iowa. But trade matters to me, as it does to farmers and ranchers all over the United States. Half of our soybeans and a third of our corn ships overseas. Last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that foreign sales of American fruits, grains, meats, and dairy almost have tripled since 2000.

This activity provides an incredible stimulus to our economy—and there’s more on the way, if only we choose to take advantage of it.

The planet is adding people all the time. Our global population will top 9 billion in 2050. That’s significant all by itself. But there is another important number we are watching and must plan for. In a similar time span, an additional 2 billion people will move into the middle-class and many of these consumers will expect to eat protein-rich diets. Think about what that means: two Chinas of potential new customers. Today’s China is already the leading buyer of U.S. farm exports, edging out Canada.

America’s farmers are ready and willing to keep on planting, harvesting, and selling, especially as new technologies help us grow more food on less land.

To take full advantage of this prospect, however, we’ll need political leaders who are committed to maintaining existing markets and opening new ones.

President Obama’s reluctance to lead the way became clear on February 3, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a fellow Democrat, emerged from a long meeting at the White House. A reporter asked Reid if he and the president had discussed trade. Reid’s reply was as blunt as it was discouraging: "No."

Less than a week earlier, Reid had rebuked President Obama for urging Congress to approve Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), a legislative device that will help the United States negotiate free-trade agreements. "We need to work together on tools like bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority to protect our workers, protect our environment, and open new markets to new goods stamped ‘Made in the U.S.A.,’" said the president, in his State of the Union speech.

Hours later, Reid punched back: "I’m against fast-trade," he said, referring to TPA. "I think everyone would be well-advised just not to push this right now."

Coming from a man who has served as President Obama’s dutiful lieutenant for the last five years, this was an astonishing remark. A day after the president had addressed the nation on prime-time television, conversation in Washington switched away from what he had said and toward Reid’s open defiance.

So when President Obama and Reid met to review legislative priorities, everyone expected the president to dress-down his erstwhile ally. Yet President Obama decided to avoid the matter entirely.

When it comes to trade, the White House strategy is all style and no substance. It involves saying nice things in public and doing nothing in private.

President Obama’s greatest accomplishment on trade is to have persuaded Congress to approve agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. These deals are already benefiting American consumers and producers—and the president deserves a portion of the credit for their final passage.

Yet they had been negotiated during the Bush administration. If presidents were pitchers, Bush would earn the win and Obama would get the save.

Baseball clubs can win games without 9th-inning relievers. But they can’t win without good starters.

President Obama’s trade team has started two sets of talks that may yet produce results in separate deals with the EU and 11 Pacific Rim nations. We’ve already heard a lot about these opportunities in speeches.

Now it’s time for the President and Congress to take some pitches and hit a couple out of the park!

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

In the boardrooms of Madison Avenue, they call it "values branding": a marketing strategy in which a company tries to instill a feeling of righteousness in the customers who buy its products.

But what kind of values would inspire a corporation to wage a smear campaign against America’s farmers?

That’s the question I asked after learning about the latest ploy of Chipotle Mexican Grill: a series of four 30-minute videos, scheduled to debut next week on Hulu, the online television service. Called "Farmed and Dangerous," it is, in the words of the New York Times, "a full-throated attack on ‘industrial agriculture,’ complete with a Dr. Strangelove-like scientist inventing eight-winged chickens."

Apparently the show also features exploding cows.

Maybe it’s funny, if you enjoy that sort of thing. Like a Super Bowl commercial with a laugh-out-loud gag, however, the point is not simply to earn a chuckle. Chipotle wants to boost its sales. "Farmed and Dangerous" is an expensive scheme to suggest that the act of buying burritos and tacos at Chipotle is morally superior to the act of buying them elsewhere.

As a business decision, it may make sense. But let’s not forget what this really is: propaganda. And it is intended to mock and discredit the honest work of farmers like me.

That’s rich, coming from a corporation that owns more than 1,500 restaurants and boasts a stock-market value of more than $15 billion. Its shares currently trade at about $550 apiece.

Chipotle was once a small fast-food restaurant chain in Colorado. Then, in the 1990s, McDonald’s became a major investor and Chipotle experienced super-sized growth. By the time McDonald’s sold its stake, Chipotle was a fast-food success story.

For the last few years, Chipotle has tried to brand itself as a source of "natural" and "sustainable" food. Steve Ells, its CEO, recently wrote about Chipotle’s "commitment to remove GMOs from our food to the fullest extent possible." He added that "there is an active debate" over the safety of foods with GMO ingredients.

That’s true, in the sense that there was once an "active debate" over whether the earth is round or flat. Every responsible organization that has studied the safety of GMOs has come down squarely on their side, from the American Medical Association to the World Health Organization. The only people who dispute these findings are modern-day flat-earthers.

Not only are GMOs a proven source of good nutrition, they’re also good for the environment. They help farmers conserve soil and let us grow more food on less land. Mainstream foods with GMO ingredients can and do exist side-by-side with organic foods and other options. That’s what happens on my farm in California, where I raise GMO cotton alongside organic onions.

As a practical matter, Chipotle is going to have a tough time keeping its food-sourcing promises. I once did business with a major retailer that considered moving its entire line of t-shirts and underwear to all-organic cotton. It quickly became obvious that there wasn’t enough organic cotton in the world to meet this demand. Organic crops are niche products, hard to grow and expensive to sell.

The same rules apply to Chipotle. The fast-food chain is almost certain to hike its prices this year, according to accounts in the business media. Perhaps consumers are willing to open their wallets. And who am I to say they shouldn’t? Choices are good, and Chipotle is free to try to persuade people to pay a premium for their food.

Yet Chipotle’s customers should think twice about their options. Last year, the progressive magazine Mother Jones took a close look at the corporation’s claims and offered this advice: "If … you want to eat organic, avoid GMOs, and get food that’s locally sourced—your best bet is to go to a grocery store."

As a farmer, I welcome an open dialogue and discussion about how I grow the food my family and yours eats. It’s a great story and I’m very proud of what I do. Sarcasm, however, is not a productive route to building that type of conversation.

"Farmed and Dangerous" shows that Chipotle is not content to promote a positive image of itself, or to achieve a peaceful coexistence with American farmers who participate in modern agriculture. Instead, it wants to build itself up by tearing others down, rejecting the famous observation of Irwin Himmel: "No one has ever made himself great by showing how small someone else is."

Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, onions, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He volunteers as a board member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

It was the saddest sight I’ve ever seen: My father’s fields turned into a diseased wasteland of trees.

Where papaya trees once stood, thick with leaves and fruit, only dead stumps remained. His life’s work as a farmer seemed to vanish, due to a lethal virus that nearly wiped out Hawaii’s papaya industry.

Access to cutting-edge technology saved my father’s farm and Hawaii’s papayas—and if we learn the right lessons from this story, it may rescue America’s oranges from a similar threat.

Growing up on a farm, I couldn’t imagine a life without papayas. Even as kids, we helped with the crop. I thought my dad was the meanest dad in the world: He forced us out of bed on Saturday mornings to do our part. When my friends were watching cartoons, I was washing papayas, slapping stickers on them, and preparing their wooden cases for shipments.

It really wasn’t that bad, of course. We also took breaks at the beach with my grandfather and played in a stream next to the field. It was good family time, and we also learned about the importance of hard work and dedication to quality.

So when the papaya ringspot virus attacked in the 1990s, it ravaged not only the economy, but also a way of life. Our family and the other papaya growers watched helplessly as the virus would start as rings on the leaves and fruit, eventually weakening the tree so much it could not produce fruit. The only way to control the virus was to chop down the trees. The empty spots in the fields eventually became depressing acres of stumps. Papayas, a staple for many elderly folks, became almost non-existent in the markets, meaning there were less local fruits.

I was in college then, and farming didn’t look like a professional option. The papayas were dying. My father was suffering. So I went into a completely different field.

I played a small part in protecting Hawaii’s papayas, however. As a student, I worked in my university’s plant pathology lab, aiding scientists who researched ways to defeat the ringspot virus. I inoculated trees and planted seedlings, under the guidance of researchers who understood the promise of biotechnology.

Science eventually saved Hawaii’s papaya—as well as my father’s farm. Today’s papaya trees carry a natural resistance to the ringspot virus. My father’s farm is back in business. His fields are full of trees that bear safe and nutritious fruit. People eat what he grows once again.

We owe it all to biotechnology.

I think of my family’s story whenever I hear about the current threat to America’s oranges.

The daughters of orange growers soon may look on their fathers’ fields and see nothing but empty fields. Some of them already do, in fact.

That’s because a bacterial infection has started to devastate orange groves in Florida and beyond. Spread by bugs, it attacks the roots of orange trees. They drop their fruit before it ripens. Then the trees begin to die.

The phenomenon is called "citrus greening." It first showed up more than a decade ago. In the last few years, it has appeared just about everywhere Americans grow oranges.

Farmers, scientists, and other agricultural experts now wonder if we’ll still be able to raise oranges in the United States in just a few years.

Think about that tomorrow morning, when you’re enjoying a cold glass of orange juice.

The good news is that biotechnology promises a solution, just as it did for Hawaii’s papayas.

Research suggests that scientists may be able to thwart citrus greening by inserting a gene from spinach plants into orange trees, providing the trees with a natural way to resist the bacteria. In its fundamentals, this is the same technique that worked for papayas.

This approach may represent the last, best hope for America’s oranges. Testing is underway.

Not unlike some of the papaya growers, some orange growers are worried. They wonder if consumers will accept genetically modified oranges. Although we eat food with genetically modified ingredients every day, an ideological movement seeks to defame modern science.

Will the oranges survive? The experience of Hawaii’s papayas suggests that there is nothing inevitable about citrus greening. With the tools of modern science, we have the ability to overcome the worst assaults on our favorite foods. Yet we must affirmatively choose this option, and then let farmers have access to what it provides.

We saved the papayas. We can save the oranges. The choice is ours.

Joni Kamiya-Rose is a farmer’s daughter, health professional, wife and mother who grew up on a papaya farm in Hawaii. Joni is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Tomorrow (January 31) marks the Chinese New Year, as the Year of the Snake gives way to the Year of the Horse. Festivities around the world will focus on food: gifts of sweets and fruits as well as family dinners.

The most significant celebrations will take place in mainland China, of course, but they’ll occur to a backdrop of grim news about Chinese food security: A recent report indicates that at least 8 million acres of China’s farmland is too contaminated for cultivation. Just last week, the government pledged to remove these areas from agricultural production.

China’s smog is better known than its soil. The dirty air is usually one of the first things visitors to the country notice. When my husband and I traveled to China last November, the air pollution was as thick as a London fog. We saw the particulates in the air, and felt the grime on our faces.

The soil suffers from a similar stress. I glimpsed this firsthand from the seat of our high-speed "bullet train" from Beijing to Shanghai. From my window, I looked upon what is supposed to be some of the best farmland in the country.

I’m used to the rich, black soil of Illinois. In China, however, the soil was grey and had a white cast to it.

At first, I thought this scene of lifelessness was a trick of the haze. But in the moments when the sun pierced the smog, it became clear that the soil was in fact badly depleted. It showed all the signs of being worn out and lacking the nutrients that plants need to grow.

Last month, China’s government admitted that as much as 2.5 percent of the nation’s soil may be too contaminated by pollutants such as heavy metals to sustain farming. That may not sound like much, but China is a big country—and the depleted area is roughly the size of Belgium (as Bloomberg News put it) or Maryland (as the New York Times calculated).

And the situation may be even worse: The study’s data are nearly five years old, having been kept under wraps as a state secret. If the old trend-lines haven’t reversed—and there’s no reason to think they have—the damaged regions probably have grown in size. The Associated Press has reported that as many as 60 million acres, almost 18 percent of China’s farmland, may be polluted.

China’s rapid urbanization contributes to the problem, as people abandon rural areas for cities. I saw farms next to smokestacks and mines—a sight that suggests that China’s planners haven’t thought carefully about preserving soil health.

Last year, an editorial in China Daily, an English-language newspaper that is usually a cautious mouthpiece of the government, expressed concern: "Soil contaminated with heavy metals is eroding the foundation of the country’s food safety and becoming a looming public health hazard."

Even without the threats of pollution and urbanization, China faces serious challenges to feed its people. About one-fifth of the world population lives in China, but China has only about one-tenth of the world’s arable land.

China’s government now promises to pour money into soil restoration, in an effort to return its suffering land to productivity. That’s a good start, and should be one element of a more comprehensive strategy.

Trade and technology are two other essential ingredients.

China already imports large amounts of food from countries such as the United States and Australia. It will want to continue and probably expand this practice, and avoid non-science based political disputes over genetically modified crops, as in the recent clash over shipments of American corn.

Separately, China will invest in the sound science of biotechnology and let its farmers have access to high-yielding crops, so that they can produce more food on less land.

In Chinese culture, the horse is a sign of ebullience and growth. It’s also an agricultural animal, often used for plowing. So let’s hope that in 2014—the Year of the Horse—China devotes itself to a rejuvenation of its soil.

When I lifted the shade on my airplane window on a recent flight into Singapore, I could hardly believe my eyes. Below me, ships crowded the straits—too many to count. The colorful scene brought to mind those black-and-white photos of the D-Day invasion during WWII.

Except that these vessels weren’t going to war. They were going to trade. Singapore, an island at the southernmost point of Malaysia, is the world’s busiest transshipment site.

Viewing the busy harbor reminded me of the tremendous potential of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a possible free-trade agreement involving the United States, Singapore, and ten other nations around the Pacific Rim.

President Obama discussed TPP in last year’s State of the Union address, praising its potential "to boost American exports, support American jobs, and level the playing field in the growing markets of Asia."

I hope he describes the benefits of TPP again on January 28, when he delivers his next State of the Union address.

I’m a farmer by vocation, but I’ve also shared knowledge with farmers and food producers all over of the world. I’ve visited about 50 different countries. And yet what I saw in Singapore was the mind-boggling dance of trade, powered by shippers as they strive to meet the demands of a growing global middle class.

Sights like this make international trade more than an abstract concept—a figure on a balance sheet or a reference in a news story. Instead, it’s a mighty force of infrastructure and transportation that improves quality of life everywhere, from the bustling ports of Asia to the snowy fields of Iowa.

If you like to drink orange juice or eat fresh vegetables in January, you can thank trade for making it possible.

Our time in Singapore followed a visit late last month to see friends and meet farmers in the western part of Australia, another country in the TPP talks. They have been harvesting a record-breaking crop in Western Australia.

The western reaches of Australia are dry but farming is significant. Not so many people live there, and the farms sit on the ragged edge of a permanent drought. When they get enough moisture, the land becomes a breadbasket. The region exports as much as 80 or 90 percent of what it grows to places like SE Asia, Japan and the Middle East, where it’s harder to grow food.

When the rains don’t come—and this year, it began to look like they wouldn’t—farmers depend even more than normal on international markets. Trade allows them to modulate extremes, taking advantage of great opportunities when they arise.

The President may have witnessed similar scenes from the windows of Air Force One and his motorcades.

President Obama came into office as a trade skeptic, but became a convert. He came to understand that trade with other nations is a partnership that can benefit all, not a zero-sum game with a loser for every winner. He secured final passage of important trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. He also knows the United States suffers from a weak economy and exports are an area of strength; a source of wealth for our people.

A State of the Union address often is a hodge-podge of policy proposals, but these speeches also have themes—and many observers expect President Obama to focus on income inequality.

Experience teaches that free trade is a tool for helping people everywhere. It lifts people out of poverty in the developing world. Trade lowers prices and expands consumer choice in developed countries like the United States.

For President Obama, however, the challenge is not just to talk about the benefits of free trade: For years, he has devoted a few lines of his State of the Union address to this subject. In 2014, he must move from talk to action, and bring the TPP talks to a successful conclusion.

Great countries prosper from robust trade, and the United States should tie itself as closely as possible to Australia, Singapore, and the rest of the world’s trading nations.

Reg Clause is a Jefferson, Iowa farmer and business consultant. He volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

As we begin a New Year, we often express our hope for the future. In Kenya, there is hope that 2014 will bring a lifting of the ban on GM imports and mark the first time Kenyan farmers will have access to important tools of agricultural technology that have been withheld from them.

One of the world’s great scientific hoaxes has been ratted out.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that his false claims already have done enormous damage to the cause of food security—and it will take a big effort to undo the harm here in Kenya and elsewhere.

The story began more than a year ago, when the academic journal Food and Chemical Toxicology published a shocking study by French researcher Gilles-Eric Seralini. It asserted that genetically modified crops—routinely grown by farmers and eaten by consumers—caused tumors in rats.

The implication was clear: One of our most conventional and important tools of food production might be bad for us.

This alleged finding generated headlines around the world. The enemies of biotechnology, always desperate for a new talking point, embraced Seralini’s work and trumpeted his conclusions. For more than a year, it was almost impossible to have a discussion about GM crops without hearing about "the rat study."

Loose talk led to bold action. France’s Prime Minister threatened to push for a total ban of GM crops in Europe. Russia suspended imports of GM food. In Kenya, where we struggle daily to feed a swelling population, the government banned GM imports and even sent agents into supermarkets to confiscate food with GM ingredients.

Despite this, many scientists immediately smelled a rat. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and Seralini seemed to contradict a mountain of previous research that has proven GM crops to be completely safe for farmers to grow and people to eat.

Experts who dipped beneath the surface of Seralini’s explosive claims quickly identified flaws in his study. Moreover, Seralini’s own behavior was suspicious: He shared pre-publication copies of his data only with journalists who signed an agreement not to contact other scientists for comment. This demand, rejected by many in the media, violated a fundamental precept of journalism. It also suggested that Serelini was more interested in publicity than scientific inquiry.

Yet Food and Chemical Toxicology is a peer-reviewed publication, edited by A. Wallace Hayes of Harvard University. So Seralini also was treated with a certain amount of respect.

It turns out that he didn’t deserve it: In November, Food and Chemical Toxicology took the remarkable step of formally retracting Seralini’s paper.

In its official statement, the journal noted that Seralini had based his astonishing claim on a tiny number of rats: "A more in-depth look at the raw data revealed that no definitive conclusions can be reached with this small sample size." To complicate matters, he relied on a variety of rat that is notorious for outbreaks of cancer: "Given the known high incidence of tumors in the Sprague-Dawley rat, normal variability cannot be excluded as the cause of the higher mortality and incidence observed in the treated groups."

In other words, "the rat study" is bogus.

The journal’s retraction is welcome, but of course it would have been better if Seralini’s research never had appeared in the first place. Its publication marked a great setback to the understanding of biotechnology in Kenya and around the world. Seralini’s phony claim occurred not in a vacuum, but in the real world, where farmers face the incredible challenge of growing enough food for a hungry planet. The imprudent publication of Seralini’s work allowed the enemies of biotechnology to spread propaganda and influenced government policy for the worse.

The future of food security in Africa and everywhere depends on good science. We have to grow more food on less land, at a time when climate change and disease threaten staple crops. In Kenya’s Rift Valley, grain farmers are watching a deadly virus cut yields by more than 70 percent. I, for one, harvested a mere 20 bags (about 2 tons) from one hectare of maize that normally yields 80 bags (7.5 tons)! Kenya now faces the stark reality of a shortage of over 10 million bags of maize according to Minister of Agriculture CS Koskey. This significant loss of harvest due to disease could be minimized by the quick adoption of biotech seeds. Without access to GM maize seeds and the immediate lifting of the import ban on GM food, it is difficult to see how Kenya will avert a looming food crisis.

We need more scientists like Norman Borlaug, whose centennial year is now upon us: Men and women committed to safe advances in agricultural technology and food security, as opposed to charlatans who somehow manage to give even rats a bad name.

Gilbert Arap Bor grows corn (maize), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya. He also teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus. Mr. Bor is the 2011 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

When I think of Cheerios, I don’t think about GMOs. I think about little kids—and right now, I’m thinking about my new grandson.

He was born just before Christmas in Michigan. My wife, my youngest daughter and I flew from our farm in North Dakota to be with them, but a big blizzard and sub-zero temperatures have kept us from leaving.

So we’re snowbound, with extra time to spoil our grandson! That’s the first job of grandparents, of course.

He doesn’t do much right now except sleep and eat. Before long, of course, he’ll roll over, sit up, and laugh. In a few months, he’ll try his first bites of solid food.

I’m pretty sure it will be Cheerios. I look forward to the day when I can spread the cereal on the tray of his highchair and watch him play and eat.

He’ll probably even throw a few loops at me.

When it happens, the phony controversy over genetically modified food won’t be foremost in my mind—but right now, it’s hard to look at a yellow box of Cheerios and not think about last week’s announcement by General Mills to quit using GMO ingredients in its original variety of the popular cereal.

A few in the media have portrayed the decision as a kind of political victory: "Under pressure from activists, Cheerios switched to non-GMO ingredients," said the headline of a CNN story.

Yet they’re missing the bigger picture. General Mills simply made a business decision to offer some customers another choice.

In the statements surrounding its decision, General Mills has made clear that it fully supports biotechnology in agriculture: "There is broad consensus among major global scientific and regulatory bodies that approved genetically modified foods are safe." It cites the support of the World Health Organization, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and other groups: "All have found approved biotech crops to be as safe and acceptable as their conventional counterparts."

Although General Mills has been a strong supporter of agricultural technology it’s also a major food company with a wide range of products. To meet the demands of a vast marketplace, it puts out more than a hundred brands of cereals, baking goods, and snacks.

A small minority of consumers prefers food with non-GMO ingredients. So General Mills also offers organic products, which of course do not contain GMO ingredients. The original variety of Cheerios won’t be an organic food, but now it will try to appeal to this sliver of the population.

Oats are the primary main ingredient in Cheerios, and there’s no such thing as a genetically modified oat. Becoming a non-GMO product means only that original Cheerios won’t contain cornstarch and sugar from GMO sources. These were only in very small amounts anyway.

Significantly, other varieties of Cheerios will keep their safe and healthy GMO ingredients, from crops such as corn, soybeans, and sugar beets. This includes Honey Nut Cheerios, which is my wife’s favorite flavor. One of the newer flavors, Peanut Butter Cheerios, can look forward to the day in the near future when biotechnology allows farmers to grow non-allergenic peanuts.

The Cheerios decision also exposes the silliness of the various state and federal campaigns to require costly labels for foods with GMO ingredients: Consumers already benefit from huge amounts of choices and information. And there's nothing wrong with GMO Cheerios. No sound science exists that suggests GMO foods are bad for our babies or ourselves.

As a fourth generation American Farmer, I recognize that GMO food technology is a major piece of the puzzle when looking into the future and being able to supply enough food and fiber in an efficient, sustainable and safe manner. And I do care about the future for my grandson, the sixth generation to possibly operate our family farm in North Dakota.

The bottom line is that most people will remain comfortable with mainstream GMO foods, but a few will choose to avoid them—and now General Mills has decided Cheerios will become just another option.

Babies of course won’t know the difference. They’ll grow up strong and healthy, just like they have for many generations before, eating whatever kind of Cheerios we put in front of them.

Terry Wanzek grows wheat, corn, soybean and pinto beans on a family farm in North Dakota. He serves as a ND State Senator and volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

The year 2013 has come and gone. How time flies when you have so much to say! From global trade talks and the economic boost of exports felt around the world to the importance of agricultural technology for the world’s farmers,hear what the global voices of Truth About Trade & Technology (TATT) said about the year that was, as it happened.

In January, TATT board chairman Bill Horan pointed out that exports have fueled growth in a sluggish economy—but also warned that they’re slowing down. "Complacency now becomes a danger," he wrote, urging the White House to pursue new trade agreements. "None of this will happen without political leadership."

The next month, President Obama used his State of the Union address to advocate the Trans-Pacific Partnership and also to call for a new free-trade agreement with the EU. Tim Burrack hailed the remarks: "If [he] achieves just one of [these accords] in his second term … he will leave behind an impressive legacy on trade. If he achieves both, he may go down in history as one of America’s great trading presidents."

By summer, the news was looking up. "I’ve been involved in trade talks for decades, both as a participant and as an observer," wrote Dean Kleckner, TATT’s chairman emeritus. "The Europeans appear more eager than ever to come to the bargaining table."

The news got even better in December, when the countries involved in the World Trade Organization’s Doha round of negotiations finally reached a deal—an incredibly modest deal, but a deal nonetheless. "After years of arguing without result, they finally appear to have struck a deal that will make a difference," wrote Kleckner.

As we approached 2014, it became increasingly clear that Congress would need to pass Trade Promotion Authority, to improve the ability of U.S. trade diplomats to finish their negotiations: "It’s an excellent system that has worked well for a long time, keeping true to the Constitution and also promoting our economy in a variety of partisan environments," wrote Burrack in December.

TATT’s other main area of interest—technology—also brought welcome news. The selection of Pope Francis in March was not a technology story, but it provided John Rigolizzo Jr. with an opportunity to remind readers of an important fact: "The Vatican stands in the vanguard of science and technology," he wrote. "It’s one of the world’s strongest supporters of genetically modified crops." Nine months later, of course, Pope Francis became Time magazine’s Person of the Year.

Not everybody shared the Vatican’s views: Around the world, advances in technology came under intense pressure from political activists and scientific illiterates. Hawaii became a battleground, even though biotechnology saved the state’s papaya industry from the deadly ringspot virus. Ken Kamiya, a member of TATT’s Global Farmer Network, told the success story: "The tool of biotechnology saved us," he wrote in July. "Thanks to genetic modification, papaya farmers were able to grow papayas again. Today our small industry has recovered and virtually all of the papayas grown in Hawaii are GM crops."

Other enemies of technology tried to require warning labels on food with GM ingredients, without any scientific justification. "It would fool people into worrying that perfectly safe food poses a health hazard," wrote Carol Keiser in August, in response to a bill in Congress. "I’m not just a food producer," she continued. "I’m also a mother and a grandmother. When I stop at the store and decide what to put on the dinner table for my family, I depend on accurate and reliable labels. I don’t want labels that push me away from safe and healthy food."

The biggest fight of the year took place in Washington State, where voters weighed a ballot proposal to force labels on foods with GM ingredients. "If you believe in thinking globally and acting locally, then think about all the people around the globe who depend on modern methods of food production—and then act locally by rejecting a ballot initiative that will make GM foods harder to produce and costlier to consumers," wrote Ted Sheely.

The next week, Rosalie Ellasus of the Global Farmers Network explained the international ramifications: "We worry that their decision will threaten our livelihoods here" in the Philippines, she wrote.

The labeling proposal went down to defeat, and TATT’s newest board member, Mark Wagoner, interpreted the result: "Voters in my home state of Washington delivered a resounding message on Election Day: We trust America’s farmers."

Politics isn’t just about defeating bad ideas. It’s about advancing good ones. In November, Hope Pjesky made the casefor the Charitable Agricultural Research Act, urging Congress to take on "what may be the greatest scientific challenge of the 21st century: Growing enough food to keep pace with a world population expected to surpass 9 billion by 2050."

Legislation can’t grow food, of course. That takes farmers—and specifically farmers who care about the soil. "I was taught as a young man that we don’t inherit the land from out ancestors—we borrow it from our children," wrote Terry Wanzek in September. "We couldn’t do it without technology. To be good stewards of the soil, we must take advantage of what science and innovation can offer, always on the lookout for how modern tools can help us grow more food and protect the earth."

V. Ravichandran, Indian smallholder farmer who received the Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award in October, echoed these sentiments earlier in the year: "Better soil leads to better living—and it all starts with a balanced diet, both for people as well as for the earth."

As we begin 2014, the centennial year of Dr. Norman Borlaug, it is good to be reminded of his words spoken in 1970 as he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize: "If you desire peace, cultivate justice, but at the same time, cultivate the fields to produce more bread; otherwise there will be no peace." From the global farmers who are Truth About Trade & Technology to each of you: A wish for the New Year that brings bread for all and peace.

As the Christmas season is celebrated around the world the wish for "peace on earth" is expressed by many. As I hear these words repeated, it brings to mind a comment made by Dr. Norman Borlaug when he accepted the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970: "If you desire peace, cultivate justice, but at the same time cultivate the fields to produce more bread; otherwise there will be no peace."

We can’t hear this message enough—especially in Europe, the home of a nonstop war on biotechnology.

One of my top moments of the year came when Cardinal Peter Turkson spoke at the World Food Prize in October. As a Catholic and Portuguese farmer who was in the audience, I was thrilled to hear a prominent leader of my church speak so favorably about genetically modified food.

My appreciation for his words only has grown since then—and they seem especially fitting now, as we celebrate Christmas and pray for peace on earth.

Cardinal Turkson heads the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, an arm of the Vatican that promotes Catholic social thought, dignity and action.

The Cardinal avoided the nitty-gritty details of the debate over GM food, but he made clear that the Roman Catholic Church fully supports the use of biotechnology in agriculture as one of the best ways to fight hunger, which Pope John Paul II called "the first and fundamental form of poverty."

Cardinal Turkson included many references of comments made by Pope John Paul II, who spoke as early as 1982 about the advantages of "the new techniques of modification of the genetic code" and "the formation of new vegetal species for the benefit of all."

Five years later, the pope elaborated: "The findings of science must be put to use in order to ensure a high productivity of land in such a way that the local population can secure food and sustenance without destroying nature." Finally, in 1990, he referred to how "other plants possess value as sources of food or as a means of genetically improving strains of edible plants."

More recently, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences has given its blessing to GM crops, praising GM food for its "great potential to improve the lives of the poor."

Cardinal Turkson continued in this tradition. He praised Borlaug for launching the Green Revolution and lauded the three winners of the 2013 World Food Prize for their role in the Gene Revolution: "We have reason today to congratulate … and to commend them for carrying on the legacy of Dr. Borlaug, putting biotechnology and research towards improving food production."

Not everyone sees it this way, of course. Earlier this month, an EU court assaulted modern food production again when it revoked an earlier decision to permit the planting of a perfectly safe GM potato. The Cardinal mentioned the strong opposition to GM crops: "Never before, having accepted an invitation, have I received so much mail, some of it urging me to withdraw."

Yet Cardinal Turkson refused to withdraw. He traveled to Des Moines and delivered his remarks, calling for conversation between the friends and foes of biotechnology. "May I cite my own African experience of ‘palaver’?" asked the native of Ghana. "Palaver is the extremely patient and thorough exploration of a whole problem until one reaches a consensus. … All the stakeholders must be represented around the palaver circle—a circle characterized by humble and respectful listening, honest speaking, reconciliation of deep differences—a circle of true collaboration."

Let’s pledge that 2014 become a year of palaver—and hope that the critics of biotechnology at last come to understand that farmers and consumers must have this tool of science and agriculture.

"The world needs everyone," said Turkson, "to stay at the table and solve these issues, rather than abandon the dialogue and leave the world’s poor at an empty table."

These words carry special weight because so many people look to the Vatican for moral leadership. Catholics certainly do, but so do many non-Catholics—and we were reminded of this important fact when Time magazine selected Pope Francis as its Person of the Year. "In a very short time, a vast, global, ecumenical audience has shown a hunger to follow him," wrote Nancy Gibbs, the managing editor.

I am hopeful that this global audience will be open to collaboration and follow the Roman Catholic Church’s lead on biotechnology. Eliminating hunger as we work for peace is a worthy goal.

Maria Gabriela Cruz manages a 500 hectare farm in Elvas, Portugal that has been in their family for over 100 years. Growing maize, wheat, barley and green peas, they use no-till or reduced till methods on the full farm. She has grown biotech maize since 2006. Ms. Cruz is President of the Portuguese Association of Conservation Agriculture, a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network and the 2010 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Tensions around the Pacific Rim have taken a sharp turn for the worse, ever since China declared a new air-defense zone and projected its power over a small set of islands in the East China Sea.

Vice President Joe Biden rushed to Beijing to confer with Chinese President Xi Jinping, but nothing seems to have come of their meeting. Diplomats in Australia, Japan, and South Korea now worry that China’s sudden aggression will lead to a conflict.

In a separate incident, unfolding below the headline-grabbing island dispute and possibly obscured by it, China fired shots in an economic war: It rejected several shipments of corn grown in the United States, in a trade spat that hurts American farmers and threatens the future of food production and distribution through trade.

China is the world’s most populous country, and in recent years it has become a major importer of corn, mostly used for animal feed. Just six years ago, the Chinese were still net corn exporters. In recent days, however, they’ve turned away more than 120,000 metric tons of U.S. corn, spread across at least three provinces and five cargoes. Inspectors refused the corn because they discovered a trait for pest resistance that China has not yet approved.

On the surface, this looks like just another episode in the global controversy over genetically modified crops.

But that’s not the real reason for China’s destructive behavior. This is a trade issue. It’s simply playing economic hardball, trying to escape from purchase contracts it signed months ago when corn prices were higher. And it’s using a phony fuss over biotechnology to distract us from this important reality.

The technical name of the corn in question is MIR162. It contains a trait that fends off insects, building stronger and healthier plants that produce more grain. As with so many GM crops, regulatory agencies around the world have approved this one for planting, harvesting, and consuming. It’s just another safe crop made possible by the remarkable advances in biotechnology, helping us grow more food on less land.

In other words, MIR162 is a conventional tool of modern agriculture. People in the United States, Argentina, Brazil, the European Union, Japan, and Mexico rely on it.

Yet China has not approved it for import. Its regulators have failed to cite any concerns about quality or safety. Instead, they simply have dawdled on an application they should have been approved long ago.

The Chinese probably would not behave this way if corn were selling for $7 per bushel, as it was earlier this year. Today, however, corn sells for about 60 percent as much—and so the Chinese have decided, with astounding cynicism, to use biotechnology as a trade barrier so they can cancel purchase contracts.

This is bad-faith behavior. It violates the norms of acceptable business practices and slashes the value of American goods, hurting the farmers who grew the corn in the first place.

Meanwhile, the media’s coverage of the incident has suggested that the dispute amounts to nothing more than a new wrinkle in the debate over the safety of biotechnology. The unspoken assumption is that fair-minded Chinese regulators have honest concerns about the safety of corn grown in the United States.

Let’s be clear: Food grown in the United States is the safest on the planet. Our trade customers have nothing to fear from it.

The U.S. Grains Council has called upon China to admit these corn shipments, and perhaps it will. Yet China’s reneging already has forced Americans to forfeit hard-earned revenues and threaten future shipments.

The long-term answer, however, is regulatory harmonization. Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, made this important point in a speech last week.

Around the world, new varieties of crops must pass through a patchwork of approval systems. It’s complex and inefficient—and, as we’re seeing right now with China, it creates opportunities for mischief, this time serving a double-whammy against both trade and technology.

A better system would let a rigorous approval in one responsible country allow for a simpler and quicker approval in another. The devil is in the details, of course, and the undemocratic rulers of China won’t be the first to sign on.

Yet this is the way forward—and it must become a priority in trade talks with our friends.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Just as South African politician and human-rights leader Nelson Mandela passed away last week, global trade diplomats finished talks in Bali that could pump $1 trillion annually into the economies of developing countries.

Perhaps the spirit of Mandela moved them. At least it’s nice to think he somehow helped bring Doha back from the dead, reviving the moribund Doha Round of world trade talks.

Mandela of course is best known for the causes of racial justice and reconciliation. He spent more than a quarter century in prison and emerged from captivity as a hero.

Free trade—or the lack of it—made his story possible. In the 1980s, the nations of the world imposed economic sanctions on South Africa’s white government. Without this hardball approach, apartheid might still be in place and Mandela might have died in confinement.

So Mandela understood the liberating power of buying and selling goods and services across borders.

The 159 members of the World Trade Organization understand it as well, or at least they do in theory. After years of arguing without result, they finally appear to have struck a deal that will make a difference.

Experts call it a "trade facilitation" agreement, which means that its implementation will reduce red tape at ports and border crossings. A representative of the Airforwarders Association, which represents air-freight companies, told Bloomberg News that importing items into a few countries can require filling out as many as 30 forms, some of them available only on paper (as opposed to electronically).

The Bali deal should improve this sorry state of affairs. Making the rules of customs easier and more transparent also should cut down on corruption.

Taken together, these reforms will reduce trade’s transaction costs, which, according to some estimates, impose the functional equivalent of a 10-percent tariff.

The Peterson Institute estimates that better trade facilitation will boost worldwide commerce by as much as $1 trillion per year. Developing countries will benefit the most, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, because they have the most to gain from modernizing their customs procedures.

Even so, President Obama hailed the WTO’s accord as good news for American small businesses, which can have a hard time deciphering complex trade rules and navigating antiquated systems. U.S. firms that specialize in logistics may see an uptick in their revenues, as countries work to enact reforms.

Given the original high hopes of the Doha Round, this is an exceedingly minor deal. The Washington Post called it "modest by any measure," and that’s a pretty good assessment.

Yet a little bit of something is better than a whole lot of nothing—and up until now, the Doha Round has been a spectacular failure.

That’s why so many participants hailed the Bali agreement less for what it delivers as for what it symbolizes.

"For a small package, this is actually a big deal," said U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, in the Wall Street Journal. "I think it demonstrates that the WTO can work and hopefully will lead to other, maybe even bigger deals going forward."

Roberto Azevedo, who became director-general of the WTO three months ago, echoed this idea: "This package is not an end. It’s a beginning," he said. "As a consequence of our progress here, we’ll now be able to move forward on the other areas of our work that have been stalled for so long."

That remains to be seen. The Bali talks nearly flopped, ending in small-bore success only because the United States and India agreed to put off a confrontation over India’s agricultural subsidies, which desperately need an overhaul.

Moreover, the greatest advances in global trade are taking place outside the WTO’s purview, in regional agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which would encourage trade along the Pacific Rim. For the United States, TPP and a possible agreement with the European Union are the biggest prizes.

Yet it’s good to see Doha spring back to life, at least in a small way and for a short time.

In the Declaration of Independence, American revolutionaries listed their grievances against the British king. Among his offenses, they said, was "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world."

What a shame that a few members of Congress now think that another of our founding documents stands in the way of modern trade policy. In a letter last month, they actually claimed to believe that Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) violates the Constitution.

This is absurd—and for our export-fueled economy to meet even modest goals in global commerce, we can’t let this bizarre interpretation of the Constitution cut off our trade in the 21st century.

The letter, organized by Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina and signed by 23 members of Congress, begins plainly enough: "We are strong supporters of American trade expansion. We are also strong supporters of the U.S. Constitution."

So far, so good.

But then the letter veers in a strange direction. It complains that TPA denies Congress the ability to oversee U.S. trade policy.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our Constitution, Article I: Section 8 says that Congress will "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." And that’s why TPA guarantees that Congress approve any trade treaty before it becomes the law of the land. Under TPA, only trade deals that receive explicit approval from Congress go into effect.

This is not theory, but actual practice. TPA—sometimes going by its earlier name of "Fast Track"—has allowed Congress to vote on all of America’s trade deals, from big ones, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, to modest ones, such as the accords with Panama and Singapore. None has gone forward without a clear endorsement from Congress.

Taken together, these agreements have strengthened the U.S. economy, creating export opportunities for American farmers and manufacturers and lowering prices for consumers.

They’re also a bipartisan success story, enabling lawmakers to reach across party lines. To expand trade opportunities, President Reagan collaborated with a Democratic majority in Congress and President Clinton worked with a Republican majority in Congress.

TPA is necessary for a simple reason: Our trading partners need to know that when they sit down at the bargaining table with the United States, they’re dealing with a single representative—and not 535 individual members of Congress, many of them embodying narrow interests and promoting separate agendas.

So traditionally the White House works with leaders in Congress to establish the goals of a trade deal. Then our trade diplomats negotiate with representatives from other countries. If they can reach terms that promise to improve our economy, they strike a tentative agreement, which the president submits to Congress for final consideration, in an up-or-down vote.

It’s an excellent system that has worked well for a long time, keeping true to the Constitution and also promoting our economy in a variety of partisan environments.

Congress of course must remain vigilant, always ready to reject a trade deal that doesn’t make sense. This includes agreements that cede too much authority to international organizations. Although every negotiation involves give and take, we must never become party to a pact that surrenders our sovereignty.

International trade is one of the keys to U.S. success—it’s a small bright spot in an otherwise sluggish economy. That’s why our lawmakers must strive to improve the ability of Americans to buy and sell goods and services with people in other countries. Two current negotiations hold great promise: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with a group of nations around the Pacific Rim, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which would improve our ties with the EU.

We should hope that both of these talks succeed—but without TPA, neither will move beyond the most initial stages of conversation.

All members of Congress should not hesitate to support TPA, confident that it will boost the economy and fulfill the constitutional imperatives to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Less than two weeks after my trip to visit farmers in the Philippines, the typhoon struck: It ripped through the heart of this island nation, with sustained winds of 160 miles per hour. Thousands of people lost their lives and hundreds of thousands more lost their homes.

It was one of the most violent storms in history.

Details of the destruction are still trickling in, but the United Nations’ food agency estimates crop damage at $110 million, and total damage to agriculture at twice that amount.

Fortunately, the farmers I met at the 9th Philippine Corn Congress last month are safe. We had gathered on the island of Luzon, north of the typhoon’s path.

Yet their country is reeling.

This was a natural disaster—an act of God, and impossible to prevent. Farmers everywhere must contend with the challenges of weather, from fast and ferocious storms to the slow-motion hurt of droughts.

What we can avoid, however, are unnatural disasters—and manmade calamities were a major concern at the meeting of Filipino corn growers. I had traveled from my farm in Iowa to be with them, spending the first four days on a tour of farms and facilities and the next four in meetings with producers.

I was struck by how much agricultural biotechnology matters in this developing country—as well as how much it’s imperiled by ignorance.

Many farmers in the United States take genetically modified crops for granted. They’ve become a conventional part of our work and an important factor in sustainable farming that allows us to grow more food on less land.

In the Philippines, however, farmers benefit even more than we do from biotechnology, due to their country’s unique conditions.

The Philippines are hot and humid. The average year-round temperature is about 80 degrees. Large amounts of rainfall partnered with high humidity sunshine causes challenges for grain storage.

The moisture poses a special problem for corn farmers, who must dry their crops in this damp climate. Due to the wetness and lack of post-harvest facilities, their corn is much more susceptible to fungus and disease. Fungus is the catalyst for mycotoxins. We sometimes see problems with mycotoxins in the United States, but not on the same scale—not even close. It’s the difference between living in a temperate climate and a tropical climate.

The best way to stop fungus and disease from infecting corn is to make sure that pests don’t open pathways for them—and this is precisely what hybrids of biotech corn help prevent. By thwarting only pests that prey on corn, they hold off fungus and disease growth. Non-GM crops, by contrast, require multiple applications of insecticide. If infected, these grains are rendered useless.

This important benefit of biotechnology is on top of the advantages we already see in Iowa and the rest of America’s corn country: better yields, higher grain quality, and less need for herbicides and pesticides.

Yet biotechnology is under assault from the forces of scientific illiteracy—and that’s the manmade disaster that Filipino farmers fear more than typhoons, if only because it’s so unnecessary.

Urban populations everywhere—from Manila to Seattle—are increasingly removed from the problems of food production. This is a wonderful luxury, allowing them to contribute to our cultures and economies in new and creative ways.

There’s an unwelcome side effect, however: People in cities often fail to understand how food moves from farm to fork, and they fall victim to misperceptions and ideologies. And so political movements blossom, and they try to deny farmers access to safe technologies.

Maybe an analogy will help. Farming is susceptible to exogenous functions, like weather, pest and disease unlike a controlled environment of a factory. However, much like a successful company expands and renovates that factory for higher production and lower cost; agriculture shares this need for new technology. Farmers need new tools to help them keep up with the appetite of changing times.

We should applaud biotechnology and how it contributes to the smooth operation of food production—perhaps most especially for the people in countries not as resource rich as the United States.

Natural disasters always will be with us. We can’t divert typhoons.

Unnatural disasters—the manmade ones such as fear of biotechnology—are a choice made not on sound science. The facts don’t lie. We must not stand in the way of beneficial technology simply because we are ill-informed or afraid.

Tim Couser farms with his parents on a family farm in Central Iowa where they grow corn, soybeans, hay, seed corn and seed soybeans along with a cattle finishing operation. Tim is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

On October 7, three American scientists shared the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for their discoveries on how cells transport molecules. It was a triumph not just for the three men, but also for a type of institution where two of them work - the "Medical Research Organization" (MRO). Created by Congress in 1956, MRO’s were designed to promote private philanthropy into the study of human health.

For more than half a century, MROs have helped people live longer and healthier lives. More than 200 now operate in the United States, ranging from Michigan’s Van Andel Research Institute to Maryland’s Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which employs two of the recent Nobel laureates.

Now it’s time to take the proven approach of MROs to solving big problems and adapt it to what may be the greatest scientific challenge of the 21st century: Growing enough food to keep pace with a world population expected to surpass 9 billion by 2050.

The Charitable Agricultural Research Act (CARA), a bill with bipartisan support, would modify the federal tax code to allow the creation of "Agricultural Research Organizations" (ARO) which would use private dollars to improve nutrition and food production. In the fight for global food security, AROs would help develop crops that make better use of water and nitrogen, defeat diseases such as citrus greening, and come up with ways to grow more food on less land.

Demographers estimate that farmers and ranchers like me will have to double their food production between now and the middle of the century, just to keep pace with population growth as well as the demands of an emerging middle class in China, India, and elsewhere. As we work to achieve this ambitious goal, we’ll have to attend to environmental concerns, resource depletion, and volatile weather.

That’s a tall order, and it will require all the scientific ingenuity we can muster. Right now, the United States spends tens of billions on scientific research every year, but the amount that supports competitive agricultural research comes to less than $500 million. Worldwide, only about 5 percent of all scientific funding focuses on agriculture.

AROs would build food and agricultural research capacity in the United States by channeling private philanthropic dollars. Just as MROs must collaborate with hospitals, AROs would be required to work with land-grant and agricultural colleges. Best of all, in an era of debt ceilings and tight budgets, AROs would not require new government spending.

This is a mainstream idea that has already garnered broad, national support, including dozens of farm groups and universities across the country.

In congressional testimony earlier this year, Steven Rhines of The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation illustrated the potential of AROs. If a new law generates only 10 of these groups with individual research budgets of $25 million—a conservative estimate, he said—their combined efforts would boost public agricultural research by 50 percent.

On a purely economic level, that’s good news: Studies suggest that every $1 of agricultural research returns $10 in benefits.

Additionally, AROs would create jobs in the American heartland. This is a positive side effect rather than their main purpose.

The goal of AROs would be to help feed a hungry planet through scientific innovation. The United Nations says that there are already 1 billion undernourished people in the world. As we struggle to provide the food for an additional 2 billion people by 2050, we’ll have to find ways to encourage our brightest minds to innovate.

Next year marks the centenary of Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution. His agricultural improvements are sometimes credited with saving a billion lives. For this accomplishment, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970.

We shouldn’t merely hope for a future in which the Nobel Foundation honors the Borlaugs of the 21st century. We must create the conditions for this actually to happen.

Congress should pass CARA right away, President Obama should sign it into law, and we should let AROs help us confront one of history’s greatest tests.

Hope Pjesky and her family are farmers / ranchers in northern Oklahoma where they raise cattle and wheat. Hope volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Voters in my home state of Washington delivered a resounding message on Election Day: We trust America’s farmers, they said.

They also proved that a little information goes a long way.

In rejecting Initiative-522, a badly flawed ballot proposal to slap warning labels on food with genetically modified ingredients, voters endorsed both sound science and mainstream methods of food production. They said no to an extremist attack that would have raised grocery-store prices, wrapped small businesses in red tape, hurt farmers like me and all of us as consumers.

This victory was by no means a foregone conclusion. In September, an opinion poll suggested that I-522 would pass by a wide margin: It had a lead of more than 40 points. A head start that big is almost impossible to overcome.

Yet the campaign for common sense was just getting underway.

A broad-based public-education effort began to provide voters with facts about GMOs and I-522. It pointed out that GMOs are an ordinary part of farming today. We’ve grown these crops and eaten food derived from them for nearly two decades, without any signs of ill effect. Organizations ranging from the American Medical Association to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have endorsed GMOs, saying they’re safe to eat and don’t need labels that will confuse consumers.

As the arguments over I-522 went back and forth, newspaper editorial boards across the state came out against the initiative. Even the liberal Seattle Times, located in the heart of the progressive city from which I-522 drew much of its support, urged its latte-sipping readers to oppose the measure.

On Election Day, Washingtonians came out strongly against I-522. They voted it down, 53 percent to 47 percent. In 35 of the state’s 39 counties, a majority said no to I-522.

The Economist asked veteran pollster Stuart Elway about the stunning turnaround: "In four decades of observing state politics he has never seen opinion move so quickly."

The backers of I-522 complain that their defeat was all about money: The "No on 522" side committed $22 million to make its case, while the "Yes on 522" side spent roughly $8 million to spread misinformation about GMOs.

This is sour grapes. In a state the size of Washington, which has about 4 million registered voters, $8 million is a lot of money—enough to get out a message and have a strong voice in what the public thinks. That’s especially true when your side enjoys a lead of more than 40 points just a few weeks before Election Day.

The reality is that I-522 lost, fair and square, in a spirited public debate.

We all know that elections don’t always turn out the way we’d like. In the case of I-522, however, it seems clear that voters encountered compelling facts that cut through a fear-mongering propaganda campaign. In the end, they made a good decision about public policy.

That’s what the Seattle Times concluded. "Scary talk about genetically engineered food failed to convince Washington voters," said an editorial, published hours after the polls closed.

Scary talk has failed to convince voters elsewhere, too. Last year, Californians rejected a ballot initiative similar to I-522. Before that, Oregonians said no to warning labels for food derived from GMOs.

As an alfalfa seed farmer in eastern Washington, I’m gratified by these results. I work hard to grow excellent crops that will turn into good food, usually by way of dairy cows that produce milk and ice cream. If I raise healthy plants in weed-free fields, your food will be nutritious, tasty, and affordable.

Biotechnology enables me to do this. Because of GMOs, I’m harvesting better crops that require fewer pesticides. This is a tremendous benefit for both producers and consumers.

In the next year or two, biotechnology will allow us to grow low-lignin alfalfa, which promises to make dairy products more nutritious as well as to help dairy cows live longer and healthier lives.

I’m looking forward to this future—and I’m thankful that my fellow voters in Washington State have chosen to embrace it as well.

Mark Wagoner is a third generation farmer in Walla Walla County, Washington where they raise alfalfa seed. Mark volunteers as a Board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

My home of Argentina is one of the world’s great breadbaskets. This nation of around 40 million people can feed more than 400 million, making farmers like me essential to global food security.

Unfortunately, the current government’s policy of export taxes and quotas threatens our ability to produce food. To make matters worse, the government provides powerful incentives to pursue short-term gains at the price of long-term productivity and ultimately, soil health.

To remain an agricultural dynamo, Argentina must reverse course immediately.

My partners and I manage more than 6,000 hectares near the capital city of Buenos Aires. We grow corn, soybeans, wheat, and barley. As with most Argentine farmers, our livelihood depends on our ability to sell goods to people in other countries.

Five years ago, however, the government placed huge export taxes on several important crops, in an ill-advised attempt to cheapen prices at home. If we want to sell soybeans outside our borders, we have to pay a special tax of 35 percent. The export tax on corn is 20 percent and on wheat it’s 23 percent. Many other items also face export taxes: beef, milk, flour, soybean oil, and more.

To complicate matters even more, the government imposes export quotas on corn and wheat. So even if we’re willing to pay the big export taxes as a cost of doing business, we can’t always sell as much as we’d like. When the export quotas fill up, crop prices in the domestic market collapse. Argentine farmers sometimes receive only half the income American farmers would expect from the same harvest.

This one-two punch of export taxes and quotas wildly distorts market signals, pressuring farmers to make decisions that have nothing to do with economic common sense or environmental sustainability.

One result of the government’s attempt to control agricultural markets is that farmers are planting a lot more soybeans—a staple crop that faces hefty export taxes but not quotas. Over the last decade, soybean acreage has increased by 50 percent.

Soybeans are of course a perfectly good plant to grow, but they are best raised in turn with other crops, especially corn. The soybean-corn rotation is one of the most common in the world, for the simple reason that this cycle improves soil nutrients and moisture.

It’s just a good, sustainable farming practice.

Yet the government’s interference throws this beneficial system out of balance—and farmers face strong economic incentives to pursue goals that will reduce our ability to grow food in the future.

If farmers plant soybeans in the same field, season after season, they risk harming the soil. Without corn stalks as a protective cover, the runoff from rainwater can lead to significant soil erosion. This robs future crops of important nutrients and makes them more vulnerable to drought.

A recent article by Reuters reporter Hugh Bronstein made the point clearly: "The loss of fertility is a slow-burning threat to crop yields," he wrote. "On the Pampas farm belt, the trend toward soy at the expense of corn could rob Argentina of its natural advantage as an agricultural powerhouse in the decades ahead."

This endangers Argentine farmers directly, but we aren’t the only ones who should worry. Demographers say that to keep up with population growth, the world must double its food production by 2050.

If we’re to meet this goal, Argentina must be a part of the equation.

But that solution is at risk—not because of a natural disaster such as a long dry spell, but because of the unnatural disaster of bad policy.

Half of the farmland in Argentina is leased, which means many farmers are especially susceptible to the government’s incentives to think about getting the most out of today and not to worry about tomorrow. Too many are stretching the health of their soil, living off the previous management.

The government needs to abandon its harmful policies and make it economically feasible for farmers to pursue proper crop rotation. The alternative is an agricultural disaster.

The stakes are high. We need to get it right, for the sake of both my country and the world’s food security.

David Hughes and his partners grow corn, soybeans, wheat and barley in Buenos Aires province and are developing a cattle ranch in Sla Rioja province, Argentina. David is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

I live almost 7,000 miles away from Seattle, but here in the Philippines I’m keeping close tabs on I-522, the ballot initiative in the state of Washington to require special labels for food with genetically modified ingredients.

And many of my fellow Filipino farmers are watching closely with me. We are hopeful that voters in Washington will reject this badly flawed initiative on November 5.

If they don’t, we worry that their decision will threaten our livelihoods here.

How could a statewide referendum on one side of the Pacific Ocean influence farmers on the other side?

The question may sound strange, but the answer is simple: The world looks to the United States for leadership, especially in matters of science and regulation. This is doubly true in the Philippines, with its historic ties to the United States and the large number of Filipino immigrants now living within U.S. borders. More than 130,000 Filipinos call Washington home, making them the state’s largest group of Asian Americans.

So if Washington approves I-522, its voters will send a powerful message—and it will say that Washington voters have rejected science and believe – wrongly – that foods with GM ingredients are suspicious and deserve warning labels.

This would be terrible for farmers in the Philippines.

Here at home, we’re locked in a battle over food security, trying to grow enough food to feed our nation of more than 90 million people. As farmers, we face all of the traditional threats: weeds, pests, and droughts. New concerns about conservation and climate change make the job even more challenging.

To make ends meet, we need every available tool, including biotechnology. Passage of I-522, however, will encourage our government to believe that Americans are newly skeptical about GM crops.

These plants already have been an incredible blessing: This proven technology allows us to grow more food on less land than ever before. The seeds cost more to buy, but they’re worth it—a clear case of "you get what you pay for."

The rumor that GM crops are dangerous is just plain silly: Groups ranging from the American Medical Association to the World Health Organization have deemed them completely safe. If I had harbored even the slightest doubt about them, I would not have fed them to my family.

Not only are these crops safe—they’re actually safer than non-GM crops. That’s because they’ve allowed maize (corn) farmers like me to decrease our reliance on herbicides and pesticides. Although these sprays are safe for consumers, they can pose hazards for farmers in the field. We’re much less exposed to them now, thanks to biotechnology.

These plants are so good at fighting weeds we’re even tilling our fields less. So we’re both growing more food and preventing soil erosion.

GM crops are not just environmentally sustainable—they’re also economically viable. If I had not started planting GM corn when it first became available, I probably would not have been able to afford to send my three sons to college.

These plants also hold tremendous potential to fight the scourge of malnutrition, such as vitamin A deficiency, which can cause blindness and even death. Golden rice, an experimental GM plant developed with the assistance of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, boosts vitamin A and could become a key to the health of children in the developing world.

Yet even this has become controversial, thanks to a toxic mix of ideology and ignorance.

In August, a group of anti-GM activists destroyed a paddy field of golden rice—an attack on the very idea of scientific research. We’ve recently learned that the group behind this destruction was funded in part by Swedish foreign aid. The government and people of Sweden probably have no idea that the misuse of their funds is making it harder for Filipinos to farm.

Approval of I-522 won’t stop me from growing GM crops next season, but it would send a signal that Americans have new doubts about biotechnology. It could cause another delay, for instance, in my country’s approval of GM talong (also known as eggplant), which is a staple food here.

For the sake of my country’s food security—the ability of farmers to grow more food in sustainable ways—I hope the voters of Washington state will reject I-522.

Rosalie Ellasus is a first-generation farmer, growing corn and rice in San Jacinto, Philippines. Rosalie allows her farm to be used as a demonstration plot for smallholder farmers to visit and learn from. She is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network and 2007 recipient of the Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

As voters in Washington state go to the ballot box on November 5 to consider special labels for foods with genetically-modified ingredients, I have a single thought: I’ve seen this movie before.

A year ago, I was caught in the middle of my own state’s battle over labels, in an election that saw a majority of Californians reject Proposition 37, which sought to do many of the same things as Washington’s I-522. Even earlier, Oregon voters also said no to special labels.

Washington state’s Pacific coast neighbors made the right decision: Passage of these initiatives in California and Oregon would have increased the cost of food and encouraged frivolous lawsuits.

Citizens in Washington would be wise to rebuff I-522 as well.

The fundamental problem with I-522 is that it’s not about food labels at all. The real agenda of the special-interest groups that favor it is something more radical: They want to ban all GM foods, even though they’re a perfectly safe and healthy choice, as organizations ranging from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to the American Medical Association continue to point out.

Their agenda is one-part ideological (hostility to modern methods of food production) and one-part commercial (many of them have a stake in the organic food industry, which they assume would benefit from I-522’s passage).

This small-minded, self-interested thinking ignores an important reality: The world needs GM crops and foods. With a population rocketing toward 9 billion by 2050, our planet must figure out how to produce more food on less land. This is one of the most urgent tasks of our century, involving questions of human life and environmental wellbeing. What you do in Washington State will impact others who want access to this safe technology.

Agriculture biotechnology is not the only solution, but it’s a necessary element. Farmers want access to these tools so they can defeat pests and weeds, withstand droughts, make more efficient use of water—and grow the food we need in a sustainable way.

If you believe in thinking globally and acting locally, then think about all the people around the globe who depend on modern methods of food production—and then act locally by rejecting a ballot initiative that will make GM foods harder to produce and costlier to consume.

Here’s another troubling fact to consider: If I-522 passes, grocery-store bills in the state of Washington will rise by about $450 per year for a family of four, according to the Washington Research Council.

Wealthy people may be able to absorb this financial blow without much discomfort. For struggling families, however, I-522 would function like a regressive tax. Worst of all, it’s a regressive tax on something they cannot live without.

So opposing I-522 doesn’t even require the vision to think globally. Just think locally: Think of neighbors who are unemployed or forced into part-time work because of a stagnant economy, seniors on fixed incomes, and young people with low-wage jobs.

Should they be forced to spend more money on food?

We all want safe food, and if I-522 were about food safety, then it might deserve backing. Yet every serious scientist and researcher who has examined GM food agrees that it’s perfectly safe. We’ve been eating GM products for years, without any negative consequences for public health. For more than a decade, most of the corn and soybeans grown in the United States have been genetically modified. If they were bad for us, we’d know by now.

As I listen to the debate over I-522, I’m reminded of what happened here in California just 12 months ago. On first glance, the idea of stronger labeling standards sounded appealing. After voters learned more about the proposed law, however, they began to see its flaws and understand all of its bad side effects and unintended consequences.

The Seattle Times took a close look at I-522 and urged its readers to vote it down. It’s "a clumsy, emotion-laden campaign" based on "alarmist concerns" rather than sound science.

I-522 may feel like a bad movie. In this case, however, you can’t just leave the theater. Instead, you must head to the voting booth and just say no.

Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He volunteers as a board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Cyclone Phailin smashed into the eastern coast of India on Sunday, leaving a path of death and destruction whose toll is still being calculated. The devastation from winds that averaged more than 120 miles per hour probably would have been worse if the government hadn’t ordered the evacuation of roughly 800,000 people, one of the biggest in history.

I missed the brunt of the storm. My farm lies to the south of the cyclone’s path, and I’ve also been traveling to the United States to participate in Global Farmer Roundtable at the World Food Prize conference. I’m grateful and honored to accept this year’s Kleckner Trade and Technology Advancement Award—a high honor in its own right, and perhaps an even higher one as we approach the centennial year of Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution and a man whose pioneering work in agriculture saved over a billion lives.

As much as I appreciate the opportunity to visit Des Moines, many of my thoughts are with the people back home. While deadlier tempests have thrashed their way across India throughout my country’s history, Cyclone Phailin has caused significant damage.

The Indian Meteorological Department has warned of extensive agricultural damage. The decimation will make life even harder for the small-scale farmers who toil on more than 90 percent of India’s farmland. They have an important job to do: They must grow the food that feeds the world’s second most populous nation.

Yet cyclones are not our most troubling problem. Indian agriculture faces challenges on too many fronts to count.

Rapid urbanization is taking farmland out of food production, pushing farmhands to move from villages to towns and cities in search of alternative employment. Young Indians increasingly resist careers in agriculture because they believe other jobs lead to more personal prosperity.

To make matters worse, the cost of cultivation keeps going up. Pests, weeds, and disease pose constant threats. Poor infrastructure, including a lack of storage facilities, puts our crops at risk even after successful harvests.

Climate change is having a bad influence as well: Cyclone Phailin has dumped an enormous amount of rain on India, but last year we had almost drought like conditions in many parts of India. The success or failure of our farming is monsoon dependent. The monsoons that traditionally provide normal levels of precipitation have become less dependable and we don’t have precise weather prediction which would enable us to plan our farming strategy.

All of this puts our food security at risk. In a nation of more than 1 billion citizens, the stakes are high indeed.

If we’re going to be serious about producing more food on less land, then India must embrace agricultural biotechnology as part of the solution.

We’ve already learned through experience about the benefits of genetically modified cotton. The success story of Bt cotton stands as a testimony for the robustness of the technology. More than 90 percent of India’s cotton farmers now use biotechnology because they’ve seen how it works. We need to adopt the same type of technology to other crops, just as the United States and so many of the other countries in the western hemisphere and elsewhere have done.

A logical first step is approval of GM brinjal—something that may happen soon, in the wake of Bangladesh’s decision to permit the commercialization of this staple food (known to many others as eggplant). Yet we can’t stop with a single plant. Just as Norman Borlaug sparked the Green Revolution, we must launch a Gene Revolution that harnesses the power of technology to grow more food.

We must direct our research effort to breed and develop climate resilient crops. Researchers are already developing flood-resistant crops, which can survive submersion longer than conventional crops—an important and useful trait in a land vulnerable to cyclones. Paradoxically, we also need to look into drought resistance, so that we’re ready for any eventuality. And in India’s vast coastal belts the soil is turning saline due to sea water ingression making salinity tolerant crops a needed tool. The list is endless.

There is no magic formula. It is possible only through adoption of scientifically proven, well-established technologies. Even then, technology won’t solve all of our problems. Many of Indian agriculture’s biggest obstacles are political rather than scientific. Decisions on farm technologies must be based only on their scientific merits and not on the basis of political science.

We, the farmers, besides earning for our families, have the social responsibility of feeding our populations with enough food and driving away hunger. We must abandon the ignorance and fear that has caused India to resist biotechnology. The time has come to embrace its promise wholeheartedly, and let India’s farmers achieve food security by growing more food than ever before. Whatever challenges we face, I am confident we can drive away hunger and malnutrition from our planet if India’s farmers are empowered to use the scientifically-proven technologies they choose.

The confidence placed in me by Truth About Trade & Technology encourages me to dedicate myself with renewed vigor in the encouragement and support of my fellow farmers. We must – we will - stand together.

Mr. V. Ravichandran owns a 60 acre farm at Poongulam Village in Tamil Nadu, India where he grows rice, sugar cane, cotton and pulses (small grains). Mr. Ravichandran is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network and is the 2013 recipient of the Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Shortly after returning home from the World Food Prize in 2010, Indian farmer Ravichandran Vanchinathan sent me an email: "TATT has made me realize my social obligation to uplift the lives of the less privileged."

He had just travelled to Des Moines to participate in the Global Farmer Roundtable, a special project of the Truth about Trade and Technology Foundation (TATT).

In the three years since then, Ravi—as his friends call him—has become a recognized leading advocate of using technology to improve the lives of farmers in his country and elsewhere.

For this achievement, he is this year’s recipient of the Kleckner Trade and Technology Advancement Award. Named for TATT’s longtime chairman Dean Kleckner, the award recognizes "strong leadership, vision, and resolve in advancing the rights of all farmers to choose the technology and tools that will improve the quality, quantity, and availability of agricultural products around the world."

Ravi grows rice, sugarcane, cotton, and pulses (small grains) on a 60-acre farm at Poongalum village in the state of Tamil Nadu, near the southern tip of India. By American standards, this would make him a small-scale producer. By the standards of his own country, he’s a larger-scale farmer.

I describe Ravi as a cutting-edge farmer, always on the lookout for new ways to improve his farm and the farms of his countrymen. What’s more, he has become one of India’s most consistent and compelling voices for genetically-modified crops as a needed tool-option at a time when India is trying to choose between empowering its farmers through the Gene Revolution and surrendering to a misguided ideology of fear that would prefer to deny farmers the means to participate fully in 21st-century agriculture.

Ravi has used technology to promote technology—he is a constant presence on Twitter (@FarmerRaviVKV) and Facebook and as a commenter on media websites. He post updates from his own field, often with pictures. There’s nothing quite as persuasive as the image of a developing-world farmer standing on his land and telling us that he wouldn’t use biotechnology if it wasn’t safe.

Last weekend, he shared a time-lapse video of adjacent rice paddies—one that was transplanted with Submergence Tolerant Rice, and one without. The comparison showed how technology can help crops survive complete submersion. Ravi pointed out what this means for ordinary people: "During floods, farmers in Bangladesh and India lose up to 4 million tons of rice per year—enough to feed 30 million people." He went on to offer flood-tolerant seeds to anybody who wants to try them.

Ravi also writes guest columns for TATT, delivering his message to an entirely different, global audience.

"India is a poor country, and sometimes I’m forced to wonder if anti-GM activists want to keep us that way," wrote Ravi in a column last year. He hailed his government’s decision not to impose a moratorium on GM crops, and called for New Delhi to approve the use of biotechnology in brinjal, a staple crop known in the United States as eggplant. Some signs suggest that with respect to brinjal, India’s leaders may come around to Ravi’s way of thinking.

His message doesn’t end with GM crops. In an April column, he explained why all farmers need access to fertilizer as well as education on its proper use. "Agricultural soil needs a balanced diet," he wrote. "That’s why fertilizer is so important. It’s the food that feeds the soil."

Yet powerful forces stand opposed. "It is really unfortunate that the policy makers of our governments seem to rely and be influenced by the vociferous, emotional, illogical outcry by the anti-science activists," he has said. "Though these activists are anti-science, they are extremely systematic and scientific in their approach in influencing the government politics through their bogus claims and allegations against GM crops."

This is our opportunity to stand with Ravi, doing what we can to tell our stories in support of a shared vision to help farmers feed the world and eradicate hunger by making the most of technology.

Dean Kleckner, in a personal letter of congratulations to Ravi, offered, "As we recognize the Centennial year of Dr. Borlaug, it is very appropriate to honor an Indian farmer who exemplifies Dr. Borlaug’s humility and tenacity in doing what it needed to get the appropriate technology and tools into the hands of farmers who will make the best use of them."

Islamic terrorists murdered more than 60 people and injured more than 200 at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi on September 21—a day that the United Nations has marked as "International Day of Peace" for more than three decades. Al-Shabab, a radical group based in Somalia, immediately claimed credit for the atrocity.

Now my countrymen want to know: How could this have happened? Why does Kenya deserve this violence?

It’s something we’ve asked before, in the bloodshed that followed our presidential election in 2007, when as many as 1,500 people died, and fifteen years earlier in the bombing of the U.S. embassy, a deadly incident that first brought the name Osama bin Laden to the attention of the American public.

At times like these, we tend to focus on those who commit these crimes—and ask how to prevent the next atrocity. In a well-received column for the Daily Nation, my country’s leading newspaper, Kenya’s Vision 2030 CEO, Mugo Kibati suggested that we improve the pay and working conditions of Kenya’s police force. "Our security infrastructure is glaringly wanting," he wrote.

We must think bigger, too.

There’s no such thing as national security without food security. Africa has countless problems, but many of them would be diminished if only we produced more food. I’m convinced that if our continent did a better job of feeding itself, we wouldn’t suffer so much violence.

So in addition to concentrating on the villains of the Westgate Mall massacre, we should focus on the heroes of food security. Let me tell you about three.

In two weeks, at the World Food Prize in Des Moines, Iowa, Dr. Charity Kawira Mutegi, a 38-year-old Kenyan scientist, will receive the Norman Borlaug Award for Field Research and Application. It honors researchers under the age of 40 who demonstrate "the scientific innovation and dedication to food security" that animated the life of Borlaug, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 for pioneering the "Green Revolution".

Dr. Mutegi has led efforts to solve the problem of aflatoxicosis, a mold that can contaminate grain. In 2004 and 2005, it was responsible for 125 deaths in eastern Kenya. Mutegi discovered the source of the outbreak and developed a method to prevent future calamities: By introducing non-toxic strains of the fungus that out-compete the toxic strains, farmers can fight aflatoxicosis at an affordable price and in an environmentally safe way.

I’ve attended the World Food Prize before. The annual gathering offers an excellent opportunity for farmers from around the world to get together and compare notes. I’m going again this year, and look forward to recognizing Mutegi and her accomplishments.

Another hero of food security is Miriam Kinyua, a Kenyan University of Eldoret professor who has overseen a project to defeat wheat rust, a disease that can destroy entire fields of crops. Using a technique called "mutation breeding," which exposes seeds to radiation and hastens the natural process of mutation, she developed several lines of wheat that resist wheat rust. Kenya’s Ministry of Agriculture has approved two for commercial use, and six tons of the specialized wheat seeds are now becoming available for our next planting season.

Kofi Annan, the Ghanaian diplomat who once led the United Nations is another hero of food security. Unlike Mutegi and Kinyua, he is a household name. He currently chairs the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, a group based in Kenya. A month ago, it issued a report that applauded the potential of agricultural biotechnology—and described opposition to genetically modified crops as a "farce."

Only four African countries have commercialized GM crops, though five more, including Kenya, are currently engaged in field trials.

African countries should rethink their skepticism of GM crops, says AGRA: "It is important to point out that GM crops have been subject to more testing worldwide than any other new crops, and have been declared as safe as conventionally bred crops by scientific and food safety authorities worldwide."

Annan is one of the world’s most influential Africans. His group’s support of biotechnology will be indispensible as our continent tries to improve its food security.

Let’s hope the world is listening.

Gilbert arap Bor grows corn (maize), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya. He also teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus. Mr. Bor is the 2011 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

There will be plenty of observers of the forthcoming EU/USA trade talks who will speculate as to the outcome with the GM factor being of major importance.

Many will feel that there is such a difference in the level of acceptance of new technology with Europe still finding it difficult to accept. You have to understand the level of ‘green politics’ in Europe where, it is argued, the ‘environment’ with use of GM would be damaged.

I have been a supporter of biotech for a long time, originally a lonely position! However, we are beginning to see some growing support, especially amongst farmers. A recent poll, in the farming press, gave a 61% result of people in favor of GM. Spain is growing 330,000 acres of biotech maize this season.

For a number of years, however, we’ve suffered from a de facto moratorium on biotech farming. The situation has been so bleak that seed companies have quit pursuing regulatory approvals for cultivation. Their plants may be the safe products of a proven technology, but they can’t overcome fierce prejudices driven by politics and grounded in scientific illiteracy.

In his new book "Something to Chew On," Irish food expert Mike Gibney explains the problem. "So great is the level of confusion" over GM food, he writes, "that a staggering one in three European citizens agrees with the statement that ‘Ordinary tomatoes don’t have genes but genetically modified ones do.’"

With ignorance like this, what hope is there?

My family farms about 100 miles north of London in the village of Bradenham, on 1,420 acres. My grandfather originally purchased some of this property in 1932, when it was going for £7 per acre. We grow wheat, barley, canola and rye grass for seed with various woodlands and grazing meadows.

We’ve also worked with GM crops when there were UK field scale evaluation trials in the late 1990’s; we grew sugar beet trials for five years. Before planting the first seed, I was confident about the technology—I knew these crops would be good for my farm as well as good for the food security of my country. Growing these crop trials gave us a better appreciation of the potential of the technology. They are an important part of the future for sustainable agriculture, in which we need to produce more food on less land.

Thankfully, a growing number of Europeans appear to agree. Last month, the Independent published a survey showing that a plurality of respondents favored growing GM crops in the UK, with 47 percent approving and 42 percent opposed. I’d like to see this slim plurality grow into a strong majority, but at least we’re headed in the right direction. A decade ago, 54 percent of the public opposed GM crops.

In another encouraging sign, the anti-biotech camp has witnessed some high-profile defections. Earlier this year, Mark Lynas, the British environmentalist, announced his support for GM food.

UK Government officials now actively back the new technologies and are speaking out as well. "While the rest of the world is ploughing ahead and reaping the benefits of new technologies, Europe risks being left behind," warned UK environment minister Owen Paterson in June. "We cannot afford to let that happen."

The free-trade negotiations between the United States and the European Union represent an opportunity to change minds. It would be wonderful if we could emerge from these conversations a year from now with EU bureaucrats granting farmers more freedom to choose what they grow.

Yet we must also tread carefully. If the United States is too aggressive in pushing for biotech acceptance, we could see blowback. Just as we’re taking one step forward, we could risk moving two steps back. I wouldn’t blame negotiators who want a broad trade agreement to take biotechnology off the table entirely.

I don’t think that will be necessary. We call them trade diplomats for a reason: they participate in the art of diplomacy, which involves the tactful handling of thorny affairs. If those on the American side are really good at what they do, they’ll take note of Europe’s homegrown movement toward GM acceptance and leave us in an improved position, ready to catch up with the rest of the world.

David Hill is a third-generation mixed arable and livestock farmer, growing wheat, barley, canola, grass seeds and other crops in Norfolk, UK. David is a Nuffield Scholar and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Heck, I can’t even imagine a morning without this delicious drink. It’s been a sunrise ritual for as long as I can remember, for me as well as my children.

I was one of those mean moms: I wouldn’t let my kids drink soda. Yet they could gulp gallon after gallon of orange juice. Now my grandchildren are receiving the same treatment. They drink orange juice all the time and love it.

What if it disappears from our diets? That would be a very unfortunate development.

Orange juice not only tastes great, but it’s also an excellent source of nutrition. Its vitamin C boosts our immune systems—especially important now, with school back in session—and also serves as a catalyst for other vitamins and minerals. They do a better job simply because they’re able to work in conjunction with orange juice.

I am clearly not the only one who knows this: About 7 in 10 American homes buy orange juice. The New York Times recently described its popular image: "the ultimate natural beverage, fresh-squeezed from a primordial fruit."

Yet we could be on the verge of losing this important drink. Orange groves across Florida, which produces the vast majority of our country’s orange juice, have fallen sick. A disease called citrus greening has ravaged them.

Citrus greening is a bacterial disease that probably originated in China a century ago. It has spread around the planet because of the psyllid, a louse-like insect that sucks tree sap. (It "looks like a cicada’s ugly little sister," according to USA Today.) As these bugs travel from leaf to leaf, they disperse bacteria that devastate orange groves. The trees lose their color and their fruit becomes salty and bitter. For all practical purposes, they’re inedible.

Florida’s orange production varies from year to year, but overall it has dropped sharply—and it could vanish entirely if citrus greening isn’t stopped.

Despite a broad, desperate global search, no member of the citrus family shows any resistance to the bacteria, so conventional breeding methods won’t offer help. Although pesticides can slow down the disease, the trees themselves are essentially defenseless.

Unfortunately, there is no known cure for citrus greening—unless chopping down entire orchards and moving to a new location counts as a cure.

There may be no cure, but perhaps there’s a solution: biotechnology.

Scientists believe they have discovered a way to save our orange juice. It involves taking a gene from spinach, one of the world’s healthiest plants, and inserting it into orange trees. It won’t make our juice taste like spinach—sorry, Popeye—but it may save this excellent morning beverage from virtual extinction.

We won’t know for a few years. Greenhouse tests are promising and field trials are ongoing. Orange growers are optimistic that they’ll finally beat the bacteria.

This is the same basic technology that already has revolutionized agriculture from the cornfields of Illinois to the papaya farms of Hawaii. Around the world, millions of farmers have harvested more than 3 billion acres of genetically modified crops that carry a natural resistance to weeds and pests.

As a result, we’re growing more food on less land than ever before—an incredible benefit for both productivity and the environment.

If biotechnology moves into the orange groves, we’ll save one of our favorite drinks. We’ll save more than that, too, because we do more with oranges than merely extract their juice. Their peels and pulp go into everything from feeding livestock to scenting candles.

Pork producers like to boast about their efficiency, bragging that they use every part of the pig except the squeal. Orange growers might say that they use every part of the orange except the squeeze.

So the defeat of citrus greening will help us save a favorite drink as well as keep prices in check on other consumer goods. Jobs are at stake as well: 76,000 in Florida’s $9-billion orange industry.

I don’t want to think about a world without orange juice. Let’s hope that biotechnology comes to the rescue.

I was taught as a young man that we don’t inherit the land from our ancestors—we borrow it from our children.

On my family farm in North Dakota, this could serve as both a statement of principle as well as a description of how we work and live. When it comes to the land, we try to take the best of what we’ve learned from those who came before us, care for it in our own time, and hand it off to the people who have the strongest claim on our conscience.

We couldn’t do it without technology. To be good stewards of the soil, we must take full advantage of what science and innovation can offer, always on the lookout for how modern tools can help us grow more food and protect the earth.

My farm comes down to me from both sides of my family: My father’s grandparents and my mother’s grandparents planted and harvested these same acres. They’re gone now, but I’m reminded of them every day. I put seeds in the same dirt. I look upon trees that they planted. I use dams and dugouts that they first built.

They left a mark here—a permanent and intentional mark, not a random one like a bit of graffiti sprayed onto a wall. Every day, I see evidence of their ability to produce food from the land, using hard-earned knowledge and wisdom.

In several spots on our farm, our grandparents established shelterbelts between fields. These look like simple lines of trees, but they’re really examples of carefully designed environmental architecture. Tall trees such as cottonwoods, green ash and box elders rise up in the middle. Surrounding them are shorter trees and bushes. Placed together like this, in different sizes and densities, they form a living wall.

We use shelterbelts for the same reasons that my grandparents used them: They provide windbreaks, protecting livestock from blizzards and soil from the steady, erosive attack of air and water.

My ancestors also taught us the importance of technology. We have an obligation to use the best tools available to us. My parents and grandparents were among the first in our area to use commercial fertilizer and drive diesel tractors. This ability to accept new ideas made them better farmers who produced more food for our family and community.

We’ve tried to follow in their footsteps. When genetically modified (GM) crops became widely available as a new tool of technology about a decade ago, I was skeptical. Would they really work on weeds without hurting the crop? I had strong doubts.

Then I witnessed the amazing results: Suddenly, our fields were free of weeds and full of crops. The stalks were strong and the kernels clean and healthy. We were able to grow more food on our land than ever before, thanks to this new technology that allowed us to make the most of our limited resource.

Best of all, GM crops helped us protect the soil.

In the past, the best way to control weeds was to till the soil—to turn it over with disks and chisel plows and moldboard plows. This method helped us defeat weeds, but it also exposed the black earth to the elements. Tilling released needed moisture, killed earthworms, exposed more potential erosion and disrupted the natural workings of the soil.

Today, we conquer weeds without stressing the soil. We also use fewer pesticides, drive over our fields less often, and grow more crops. My great grandparents would be both astonished and thrilled to see how we’ve protected the land that they first planted and gotten more out of it than they ever could have dreamed possible. Yet they’d instantly recognize our determination to do what’s best for the land and to adopt technologies that help us achieve our goals.

I’m the fourth generation in my family to work here, and the fifth generation—my son and nephew—are beginning their own careers on the farm. I expect that their children and their children’s children—the people from whom we’ve borrowed this soil—will be here as well, taking up tools that are beyond the scope of my thinking and growing more food than I can imagine.

Terry Wanzek grows wheat, corn, soybean and pinto beans on a family farm in North Dakota. He serves as a ND State Senator and volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Members of Congress will want to bear in mind this important detail as they weigh President Obama’s request to approve a U.S. military strike against Syria.

Most of their concerns will be more immediate, of course. They’ll examine the evidence purporting to show that the regime of Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons. They’ll also debate the likely consequences of military action: Will it prevent future attacks? Will it empower a rebel movement of Muslim extremists? Will it start a wider regional conflict?

Reasonable people can disagree. Whatever Congress decides, however, we should remember a fact that is beyond dispute: food security is an essential part of national security.

Syria’s unrest has many sources, and one of them is food.

Nearly three years ago, Tunisian authorities seized the fruits and vegetables of Mohamed Bouazizi, a street vendor, apparently because he refused to pay bribes to local officials. Outraged by the injustice, Bouazizi went to his governor’s office and shouted, "How do you expect me to make a living?"

Then he lit himself on fire—and sparked a momentous wave of protests throughout the Middle East, sometimes called the "Arab Spring."

Within days of Bouazizi’s death, people across Tunisia assembled to complain about food inflation, lousy living conditions, and restrictions on political freedom. Soon they chased Tunisia’s president from office. The turmoil then spread to Egypt, Libya, and Yemen. Next it reached Syria, where more than 100,000 people have died since a civil war broke out more than two years ago.

When you’re hungry, you’ll do desperate things to feed yourself. When your kids are hungry, however, you’ll do anything to feed them. It’s the difference between stealing a chicken for yourself and shooting someone to get a chicken for your family.

The United Nations estimates that nearly 900 million people around the world are food insecure, meaning that they don’t have access to enough safe and nutritious food. That’s about one out of every eight people.

To complicate matters, these people are aware of their plight more than ever before. They know that billions of other people are better off. Television programs and the movies share images of abundance from the developed world. Bombarded with pictures of people who struggle with obesity rather than starvation, the poor parents of gaunt children become envious.

Who can blame them for dreaming of a different life?

As fellow humans, we should sympathize with their predicament. As Americans concerned with global stability, we should think about how to improve their lot. If we don’t, their food-security worries will become our national-security dilemmas.

Children not only must be fed enough calories, they must also receive a balance of vitamins and nutrients to allow for proper cognitive development. The United States should want a world filled with intelligent people who can think and reason, as opposed to a planet populated by people with low cognitive skills who live on rumors, succumb to radical ideologies, and choose violence.

Food security is one of the keys to success—and "feed the world" isn’t just a charitable slogan, but rather a national-security imperative.

Last year, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization published "The State of Food Insecurity in the World." Amid the document’s statistics and charts was a common-sense observation: "Agricultural growth is particularly effective in reducing hunger and malnutrition."

This statement may sound transparently obvious, but its practical application can be tricky. Agricultural growth requires both scientific innovation and political determination.

If we’re serious about food security, we have to figure out how to feed more people on less land. That means supporting the latest technologies, such as genetically modified crops that resist weeds and pests, survive drought, and yield more food. We should push for golden rice in China and GM brinjal in India. We must also strive to lower trade barriers so food can flow from producers to consumers without the interference of protectionism.

The alternative to food security is food insecurity—and a dangerous world full of hungry people, perilous situations, and bad options for American policymakers.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter| Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Corn flakes are one of the most popular breakfast foods in the world—and 15 years ago, Norway banned them.

Technically, its government outlawed the importation of corn flakes that were fortified by vitamins and iron. Officials at that time claimed that Norwegians didn’t need the extra nutrition.

It was an absurd case of protectionism, obvious to all and eventually overturned by a court. In the meantime, however, it disrupted the flow of ordinary trade, frustrating to both producers and consumers.

I believe it is important that we do what we can to avoid this nonsense in the first place. That’s exactly what a good free-trade agreement between the United States and the European Union would accomplish. The movement of goods and services across the Atlantic Ocean is currently worth almost $1 trillion per year. With fewer barriers, that value would rise. And what might be most important of all, for the first time in a long time, the European leadership appears committed to negotiating and completing a comprehensive agreement.

I’ve been involved in trade talks for decades, both as a participant and as an observer. The Europeans appear more eager than ever to come to the bargaining table. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what The Economist said earlier this year: "A free-trade pact has never had such support in the chancelleries of Europe."

U.S. negotiators must seize this rare opportunity to push ahead on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP).

A majority of Americans already support more trade with the EU: 58 percent, according to the Pew Research Center. In Europe, however, even bigger majorities want the same thing: 75 percent of Italians and 65 percent of the British. Seven out of ten Italians and British even back the complete elimination of tariffs between the United States and Europe, along with more than half of Germans and Poles.

These positive attitudes have many sources, beginning with Europe’s weak economy. Lawmakers around the world are looking for ways to stimulate growth without spending taxpayer dollars. Trade is an attractive and viable option. Moreover, the collapse of the Doha round of world trade talks has encouraged leaders to look for new ways to bring down barriers.

"We intend to move forward fast," said European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso of TTIP talks in June. "Huge economic benefits are expected from reducing red tape, avoiding divergent regulations for the future."

On top of that, anti-Americanism in Europe is receding. Just five years ago, only 42 percent of the French had a favorable view of the United States. Today, that figure is 69 percent. Polls of Germans and Spaniards also show dramatic reversals in attitudes.

There are plenty of challenges. Some look easy to resolve, such as Europe’s insistence that imported cherries show no evidence of brown-rot fungus, as well as separate proof that growers have employed field controls to prevent the disease. Cherries traded within Europe don’t have to meet any of these standards.

Other differences will be more difficult. The EU currently bans pork produced with ractopamine, a feed additive commonly used in the United States. It also restricts chicken washed with water that includes chlorine, another routine—and safe— U.S. practice.

Europe’s non-scientific approach to food safety represents one of the deepest divisions between the two sides—and one of the greatest aggravations for Americans, whose food-safety standards are both first rate and more accepting of new technologies. For years, Europe has used food safety as an all-purpose excuse for protectionist policies that exclude U.S. products from its markets. I’ll never forget when the Europeans required U.S. workers to wear white rubber boots in U.S. slaughter houses that wanted to export meat to the EU. Not red or black or green boots – white boots – just like the workers wore in European slaughter houses.

The most significant challenge, however, may be the acceptance of biotechnology as a tool in crop production. Europe has refused to join the Gene Revolution that has transformed agriculture around the world, allowing farmers to grow more food on less land. All the while, many of its officials have maintained a maddening posture of extreme sanctimony. A lot of them know better, and will say so in private conversation.

So the present moment may provide an opportunity not only to conclude a trade agreement with Europeans who are ready to make a deal, but also, perhaps, to nudge the EU toward a more sensible, science-based approach on technology.

This may be a once-in-my-lifetime opportunity. Let’s take advantage of it.

The purpose of a food label is to help consumers make smart decisions about what to buy and eat.

But what if these labels confused people instead of informed them? Or worse yet, what if labels actually misled consumers?

That’s the problem with legislation introduced in Congress earlier this year to require special labels for food with genetically modified ingredients. Offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the bill threatens to hoodwink the public.

It would fool people into worrying that perfectly safe food poses a health hazard.

Suddenly, our food labels would need warning labels: "Believe the contents of this label at your own risk."

The dangers of deceptive labeling aren’t a speculative assertion, but rather the main point of a recent paper by Juanjuan Zhang, a marketing professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Mandatory disclosure of GMOs in food products lowers consumers’ perceived GMO safety," she writes in "Policy and Inference: The Case of Product Labeling."

Zhang’s research reveals that the mere act of labeling food that contains GMOs is deceptive. It causes consumers to suspect that GMOs are dangerous, even though the safety of biotech food is beyond reasonable doubt, as organizations ranging from the American Medical Association to the World Health Organization have determined.

To arrive at her conclusion, Zhang conducted a clever experiment. She approached 200 people in several settings: in grocery stores, at a college dining hall, and outside a food truck that serves organic fare. Then she separated participants into two groups. The first received a statement that said the U.S. government does not require labels on food with GMO ingredients. The second saw a statement about proposals to require special labels for food with GMO ingredients.

Then Zhang asked both groups to rate the safety of GMOs on a scale of 1 ("totally unsafe") to 5 ("totally safe").

Her observations were striking. People in the first group had a favorable view of GMOs. They gave GMOs a mark of 3.62—considerably more safe than unsafe.

People in the second group, whose experience was meant to approximate reading a label on food package, rated GMOs at 2.65—i.e., substantially lower than the first group.

The different responses are entirely logical. Consumers assume that if GMOs are safe, there’s no need to label them. If they see labels, however, they imagine that there must be something unsavory about GMOs.

Supporters of the "just label it" movement like to talk about "the right to know." Yet Zhang’s scholarship shows that consumer behavior is more complicated than a political slogan. Labels possess the power to mislead. That means our lawmakers must mandate them sparingly, and not just because a few special interest groups want the federal government to help them obtain a competitive advantage in the food market.

If Congress fails to resist the politicization of food labels, our food labels no longer will carry basic information in a simple format. Instead, they will begin to resemble long and complicated legal disclaimers—the kind that nobody reads, let alone comprehends.

So here are a couple of alternative mottos: Less is more. Keep it simple. These should be guiding principles behind the rules of food labeling.

I’m not just a food producer. I’m also a mother and a grandmother. When I shop at the store and decide what to put on the dinner table for my family, I depend on accurate and reliable labels. I don’t want labels that push me away from safe and healthy food.

I trust scientists and food experts: GMOs are safe. They are part of a proven technology and have become a conventional part of agriculture. We eat them every day. I also appreciate that they’re environmentally friendly and highly sustainable, helping us grow more food on less land.

Despite all this, some people really do want to avoid GMOs. The good news for them is that they already have an option: They can buy food that’s labeled "organic." This way, they can be certain that their food contains no GMO ingredients.

Congress should reject this scheme to contaminate our food labels with distorted information. Maybe copies of the Boxer-DeFazio legislation should carry a special label for lawmakers: Caveat emptor, or "Let the buyer beware."

As a New Jersey farmer, I remember and have been publicly supportive of President Obama’s export promise in 2010. And I’m not alone, joined by business owners and leaders, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers and retailers across the country.

"We need to export more of our goods," he said in his second-ever State of the Union address. "So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years."

As recently as 18 months ago, the president announced with pride that "we’re on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule."

Today, however, with the self-imposed deadline just a year and a half away; he doesn’t mention his export target anymore. It seems to have "vanished from White House talking points," observed Tom Raum of the Associated Press last week.

That’s because we’re going to fall far short of meeting President Obama’s objective.

Since 2010, exports have increased by only about one-third. Adjusted for inflation, they’ve been ever weaker, growing by just one-quarter. If they continue at the current clip of 3.3 percent annual growth, they’ll total only about $200 million per month in 2015, says Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute.

Instead of doubling, as President Obama pledged, exports will have risen by merely 40 percent.

We should never take growth for granted. Yet it’s also a disappointment.

What accounts for this missed goal? One important factor is outside the administration’s control: The global economy is stuck in a rut, which means that foreign customers aren’t buying American products as much as they might. Economic slowdowns around the world from China to Europe continue to hurt the U.S. export economy and there’s only so much a politician in the United States can do about it.

To complicate matters, we’re measuring exports in terms of dollars rather than by volume. Dollar value is important, but it’s also vulnerable to fluctuations in commodity markets and inflation. Volume is a better indicator of export health, and sadly we’re struggling in this area as well. On August 12, the World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) released their latest monthly report, stating that this year "corn exports are projected 25 million bushels lower with reduced domestic supplies and increased foreign competition." What does that mean: Lower volume and lower prices equals less trade and fewer dollars at home. That impacts all of us.

We can do better. The President’s goal to double exports is worth fighting for. Alfred Lord Tennyson once wrote that it’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. Likewise, it’s probably better to have come up short against an ambitious export objective than never to have stretched for it in the first place.

Yet President Obama’s dedication to the expansion of America’s export markets is an open question. His three great victories—congressional approval of free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea two years ago—were the initiatives of his predecessor. The President deserves praise for seeing them through, but he’s now in his second term and his administration has yet to ink a free-trade pact with anyone. In many cases, the White House has seemed more interested in sparking small-scale trade wars with the likes of Canada, our most important trading partner, than breaking new ground.

The administrations trade diplomats are hoping to finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an accord that one day could include Japan as a trading member. They’ve also just started trade negotiations with the EU, hoping to forge the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Success with either would go a long way toward meeting the goal to significantly increase exports and cement President Obama’s free-trade legacy.

Even with the best intentions however, the president won’t get far without Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). This important legislative trade tool will allow the White House to negotiate free-trade agreements and put them before Congress for an up-or-down vote. Since the 1970s, when TPA, also known as "fast track", was first used, every president has enjoyed this advantage for at least part of their presidency---except for President Obama.

Congress allowed TPA to lapse six years ago amid partisan wrangling and has yet to restore it, in part because the Obama administration hasn’t been aggressive enough in asking for it. Although there was some hope that Congress would approve TPA this summer, it’s now clear that nothing will happen until this fall at the earliest.

My apologies to the makers of alphabet soup, but without TPA there won’t ever be a TPP or a TTIP—and export growth will continue to let us down.

In the future, we’ll all be better off worrying less on promises and focusing more on results.

John Rigolizzo, Jr. is a fifth generation farmer, raising fresh vegetables and field corn in southern New Jersey. The family farm produces for retail and wholesale markets. John is a volunteer board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Around the world, we hear stories of agricultural progress, as more countries join the Gene Revolution. In 2012, Cuba and Sudan planted biotech crops for the first time. This year, Bangladesh—which has the world’s eighth-largest population—will make the leap as well.

In one country, however, we see a unique case of agricultural regress: Romania, which I visited earlier this summer. It’s the only nation on the planet to take part in the Gene Revolution and then drop out. But not by choice…

Romania’s farmers want back in—and the story of GM crops in the Black Sea region may be instructive as the United States and the European Union try to negotiate a free-trade agreement and find common ground on the thorny question of genetically modified crops.

The goal of my two-week study trip, sponsored in part by the Iowa Farm Bureau, was to examine the grain potential of Romania and Ukraine, with a focus on how their productivity will impact markets.

Eastern Europe is still recovering from the legacy of Communism, and many Western Europeans consider it a backwater. Yet Romania defied the stereotype in 1998, as GM crops became available. On a continent hostile to GM food, it became a Gene Revolution pioneer, utilizing the technology that allows farmers to grow more food on less land.

GM corn and soybeans grew in popularity and appeal with Romania’s farmers; just as they have everywhere they’ve been adopted. Then politics intruded. Lawmakers banned virtually all GM farming in 2007 so Romania could become a member of the EU, which has been relentlessly hostile to farm biotechnology.

In 2006, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Romanian farmers grew more than 335,000 acres of GM soybeans. By last year, this number had plunged to almost nothing.

Romanian farmers didn’t choose to abandon GM crops, but were forced to give them up. Many have switched to growing low-priced grains such as barley, rye, and wheat—and wish they could go back to the old rules, when they enjoyed the freedom to plant what they wanted.

Today, Romania cannot allow its own farmers to grow the crops their country needs—but it imports soybeans, including GM soybeans. This surely raises the price of food for ordinary Romanians, where per-capita income is less than $13,000 annually, according to the International Monetary Fund. That’s only a little more than one-quarter of per-capita income in the United States.

Ukraine is in a different position. It’s not a member of the EU, though officially it shares the EU’s anti-biotech attitudes and bans GM crops. Unofficially, however, it recognizes the benefits of biotechnology. My hosts estimated that about 70 percent of Ukraine’s soybeans and about 30 percent of its corn are the beneficiaries of genetic modification.

How do they do it? Perhaps they smuggle in seeds. In the case of soybeans—but not corn—they may be able to save seeds from one year to the next.

Yet the "how" is less interesting than the "why." Ukrainian farmers break their country’s laws and grow biotech crops on the sly because they know this technology improves food production. Apparently the government is willing to look the other way.

It made me wonder: How many other European countries grow GM crops off the books?

The answer is unknowable. It won’t show up in any official figures, after all.

The fact that we can ask the question, however, undercuts the myth that European farmers don’t want to have anything to do with GM crops. Clearly many of them do—and they’re willing to take risks to do it.

For what it’s worth, farmers in both Romania and Ukraine believe that they’ll have access to GM crops in the next five or ten years. The advantages are so obvious, they think, that widespread acceptance is inevitable.

Inevitability should not become an excuse for complacency. As U.S. and EU trade representatives negotiate a free trade agreement, more European farmers should speak up and explain why biotech acceptance is important to them—and know that a lot of their European farmer neighbors will cheer them on, even if only in secret.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Many people in India view our neighbors in Bangladesh with a measure of pity. They inhabit an overcrowded, less-developed country whose citizens earn less than half our per-capita income. Massive floods are a seasonal terror. Man-made woes also curse them, including the Savar building collapse in April. It killed more than 1,100 people in the deadliest structural failure in modern history.

In one important regard, however, Bangladesh is embracing technology and will jump ahead of India: It’s about to allow the planting of genetically modified brinjal, a staple vegetable that many people around the world call eggplant.

Growers in Bangladesh will become the envy of India’s farmers. We desperately want to access GM brinjal, but our government won’t let us have it – and now a committee of our Supreme Court has just called for an indefinite moratorium on field trials for new GM crops. Farmers in the Philippines have experienced similar frustrations.

So Bangladesh is embracing a bright future at a critical moment for global food security: Experts say we need to double food production by 2050, and the tool of biotechnology offers one of the most promising hopes for achieving this goal.

Bangladesh is now moving in the right direction. By becoming the first country to commercialize GM brinjal, it will discover the advantages of growing more food on less land—an excellent benefit in a country with incredible population density. Only tiny states such as Monaco, Singapore, and Vatican City pack more people per square mile into their borders. Bangladesh is the most crowded place on the planet.

This puts cropland at a premium, and means that Bangladeshi farmers must do everything they can to boost output as they try to feed more than 150 million people in the world’s 8th-most populated nation. Right now, Bangladesh harvests more than 380,000 tons of brinjal per year, according to the Bangladesh Agriculture Research Council. Soon, these farmers will grow even more of this vegetable, which is an ideal crop for developing countries because it’s good to eat and relatively inexpensive to produce.

I’ve grown non-GM brinjal on my farm for many years, so I know the challenges that it presents. The pests are terrible. Fruit and shoot borers can reduce a crop badly or destroy it entirely. Up to now, pesticides have offered the only way to cope. We spray every fifteen days on my farm. Some farmers actually overdo it, applying pesticide more frequently, due to ignorance or anxiety. This creates problems for workers in fields and families in kitchens.

Biotechnology can change all this. By using the same safe and proven technology that has transformed agriculture for so many around the world, brinjal can fend off the bugs on its own, leading to higher yields, healthier vegetables, and lower costs. This helps farmers and consumers alike.

The Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) has developed four kinds of GM brinjal, based on local varieties and with the assistance of scientists at Cornell University and USAID. After seven years of testing in greenhouses and fields, BARI has submitted its products for government approval, which should arrive soon.

When this happens, Bangladesh will become the 29th country to allow GM crops. Three countries in south Asia already grow GM cotton: India, Myanmar, and Pakistan. Bangladesh will be the first to permit a food crop to take advantage of the biotech tool.

India could have been first. Scientific committees appointed by our government had ruled GM brinjal safe and ready. Then our politicians reacted to the protests of environmental extremists and anti-biotech activists. In 2010, to the severe disappointment of farmers who understand this technology and consumers who hope for inexpensive food, it banned GM brinjal.

There are signs that New Delhi may be rethinking its harmful opposition, even as our Supreme Court pays too much attention to protestors. At a forum sponsored by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research in July, President Pranab Mukherjee saluted biotechnology as a tool to improve India’s food production: "Development and introduction of genetically modified crops has the potential to revolutionize agriculture," he said.

I am hopeful these words will translate into actions. I and India’s farmers must ask the Indian government to follow Bangladesh’s lead. In the meantime, the actions of Bangladesh give us hope that biotechnology may continue to flourish—and that India soon will move forward as well.

Rajesh Kumar farms 120 acres in two regions of India, using irrigation to grow brinjal, sweet corn, baby corn, tomatoes and other vegetables. He sells fresh produce directly to consumers through kiosks at several locations and runs a food processing unit for canning of vegetables. Mr. Kumar is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network and recipient of the 2012 TATT Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement award (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

The wealthy actress said so earlier this month, during a public hearing on Hawaii Bill 79, proposed legislation that would outlaw growing genetically modified crops on the Big Island.

"For the people who make their living growing GMOs, you know everybody here is very giving and they probably would bend over backwards to help you burn those papayas and grow something decent," said Barr, who moved to Hawaii after making her fortune in Hollywood.

Barr speaks for a movement of political activists who want to wipe out modern farming in Hawaii. They’re trampling on science, violating the rights of farmers, and ignoring an incredible success story.

Papayas are one of Hawaii’s great crops. I’ve grown them for four decades on Oahu. My family is so connected to the fruit that there’s even a variety named after us: the "Kamiya papaya."

During the 1990s, however, papaya farmers almost lost everything. The deadly ringspot virus spread through our islands and ravaged papaya trees. It became impossible to grow this delicious fruit.

Then the tool of biotechnology saved us. A scientist named Dennis Gonsalves figured out an ingenious way to make our papayas resist the ringspot virus. He inserted a piece of the virus’s own genes into papayas, effectively inoculating our plants.

Thanks to genetic modification, papaya farmers were able to grow papayas again. Today our small industry has recovered and virtually all of the papayas grown in Hawaii are GM crops.

Barr and the backers of Bill 79 want to suppress the technology that has allowed us to survive and thrive.

Advocates of Bill 79 claim that their ban exempts papayas. This is true only in a highly technical sense. The legislation doesn’t outlaw GM papayas the way it outlaws other GM crops, but it imposes so many new restrictions on papayas that farming them will become impractical.

To make matters worse, Bill 79 casts doubt on a proven technology at a time when we’re trying to build an export market for papayas among Japanese consumers. Enacting the law would declare that Hawaiian leaders don’t have confidence in the food Hawaiian farmers are trying to sell overseas.

Lawmakers sometimes like to tell farmers that they have our back. If they approve Bill 79, however, they’ll be stabbing us in the back.

Yet the dispute over Bill 79 is about much more than papayas. It’s about the future of farming in Hawaii—and a ban on biotechnology would have a terrible effect on Hawaii’s ability to grow food.

One of our most important crops is coffee. In 2010, however, the coffee berry borer, a beetle native to Africa, arrived on our islands and started to infest our coffee farms. These pests drill holes into coffee beans, rendering them useless.

By some estimates, the 700 farms that make up Hawaii’s coffee industry have suffered losses of 25 percent or more. Two weeks ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a $1-million plan to fight the bug, but everyone agrees that the problem is growing worse rather than better.

Can biotechnology help Hawaiian coffee beat the coffee berry borer the way it helped Hawaiian papayas defeat the ringspot virus? Or the way it helps most of the corn grown in the United States resist the corn borer? This is a promising possibility—but Bill 79 would make it illegal to utilize this important new technology.

How silly. Around the world, farmers have planted and harvested more than 3 billion acres of GM crops. These growers include massive soybean operations in the United States and Brazil to subsistence farmers in Burkina Faso and the Philippines.

GM crops are a safe, healthy, and well understood technology. They help us grow more food on less land, both preserving the environment and keeping food prices down for consumers. In the future, they’re only going to get better, as we develop drought-resistant crops that conserve water and biofortified rice that boosts nutrition.

But before anyone can enjoy these benefits, sensible people must play a little defense—and stop Roseanne Barr and her friends from burning down my papaya farm.

Ken Kamiya has grown papaya in Hawaii for almost 40 years. The "Kamiya" papaya is named in recognition of his work in the industry. Mr. Kamiya is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

"There is no such thing as too much information," said New Jersey lawmaker BettyLou DeCroce a few days ago.

That’s definitely not true. We’ve all experienced "TMI" moments.

Then there’s TMI’s close cousin: utterly useless information. And that’s what DeCroce unfortunately supports in New Jersey. She backs a bill that would require all food sold in the state to carry special labels when it’s made with ordinary plants that I’ve grown for years on my New Jersey farm.

Labels specifically for food with genetically modified ingredients provide utterly useless information. They won’t deliver any benefits to consumers, but they’ll force the price of food to rise for everyone.

The good news is that New Jersey probably won’t approve the legislation, at least not in the near term. Unlike most of the country, here in the Garden State we elect our lawmakers in odd-numbered years. Most analysts don’t expect major new initiatives until after November.

Yet the bill, recently rubber-stamped by a budget committee, is part of a troubling trend. Across neighboring New England, politicians in several states are voting to label foods that contain GM ingredients. Connecticut and Maine have approved laws that will take effect if several other states join them. Vermont has also passed a bill in one of its legislative chambers.

This political activity on the state level flies in the face of established scientific evidence. Experts at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration say that food with GM ingredients is safe and perfectly healthy, so there’s no need to label. The American Medical Association and a long list of reputable groups agree.

They’re right: Food with GM ingredients is the same as food without GM ingredients. It tastes the same and, in many cases, scientists can’t tell the difference between them.

In New England, however, sheer ignorance is starting to shape the debate. After voting for Connecticut’s law, for instance, Senate President Donald E. Williams explained his decision: "There is mounting scientific evidence showing that genetically modified foods are harmful to our health."

I’ll give Williams the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s a well-meaning public servant. Yet his words hardly could be more wrong. GM crops are among the most studied and best understood plants on the planet—and there’s not a sliver of real scientific data that does anything but affirm the safety of food made with GM ingredients.

Labels won’t help consumers make better decisions, but they’ll increase the cost of food because the labels aren’t free. They represent a significant new regulation on farmers and food companies. The added expense of compliance will be passed along to consumers. We’ll all pay more for what they eat at grocery stores and restaurants.

At a time when the U.S. economy is at best sputtering along in New Jersey and elsewhere, we shouldn’t pass pointless laws that make it harder for families to feed themselves.

It would be bad enough if the negative impacts of excessive labeling with information of no use to human health or safety were to stop there. Yet they’ll extract an even higher toll as they call into question the very purpose of GM technology. Consumers may begin to wonder why this food needs labels in the first place—and they may start to avoid it.

That would be a tragedy. Biotechnology lets us grow more food on less land. That’s why I grow GM crops on my farm, not far from where Assemblywoman DeCroce cast her wrongheaded vote in favor of an unnecesary labeling law.

As we struggle to feed our families in tough times—and try to find ways to feed a growing global population—we need to appreciate food grown with the benefit of biotechnology as part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Forward-looking people should embrace GMOs, not slap them with misleading labels that will raise prices and discourage consumers.

The labels we already use on food are just right, giving us information we need to make smart choices about what we eat.

John Rigolizzo, Jr. is a fifth generation farmer, raising fresh vegetables and field corn in southern New Jersey. The family farm produces for retail and wholesale markets. John is a volunteer board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Shortly before last week’s long U.S. Independence Day weekend, the Obama administration announced that it would delay the employer-mandate portion of the new health-care law for another year.

Some pundits suggested a political motive, saying that the White House wants to suspend the unpopular requirement until after next year’s congressional elections.

Yet almost nobody pointed out that the postponement is part of a troubling pattern: This administration can’t get its regulatory house in order.

I feel the frustration every day as an American farmer. To grow crops, I’m always on the lookout for safe technologies that will help me make better use of the land, whether it’s with improved water conservation or advanced pest control. The government needs to help out; through an efficient and effective regulatory system that makes science-based decisions in a timely fashion.

Unfortunately, our regulatory system is broken. And farmers increasingly see the Department of Agriculture not as a partner committed to helping us grow food, but as an obstacle that simply gets in the way of responsible production.

Two cases in point involve new trait technologies that use time-tested herbicides: one with a technical name, 2,4-D and the other, dicamba. The herbicide 2, 4-D was first developed in the 1940s. My father started using it on our farm in the 1950s. Dicamba was introduced in the 1950s and I’ve been using that tool on our farm since 1967.Today, they are two of the best understood and most widely accepted herbicides on the planet.

They’re also key ingredients in two important new crop-protection tools. Having access to 2,4-D and dicamba technologies will help farmers get the yield we need to compete while easily killing weeds that have become difficult to control.

Sensationalist accounts in the media have dubbed these "superweeds," a silly word that makes ordinary vegetation sound like something out of "Little Shop of Horrors," the humorous musical about plants that eat people. Whatever we label them, we need new tools to fight them—and I’ve been eager to get my hands on these new products, as are many other farmers.

But USDA won’t let us have this new technology. To make matters worse, it won’t explain why and its failure to do so violates federal law.

USDA is required by law to respond to regulatory petitions within 180 days. With 2,4-D-tolerant crops, the waiting has now lasted three and a half years—seven times the period required by federal law.

A USDA announcement in May that it is extending the review of these technologies suggests that the waiting will continue for more than a year. For how long will USDA dawdle? Nine times the requirement under federal law? Ten times? Forever?

I should be using this product on my fields right now, during the growing season of 2013. It’s too late for that, of course. Right now, I’ll be lucky if this product is available before President Obama leaves office.

This is ridiculous. The 2, 4-D trait technology is already approved in Canada. Approvals are imminent for it in other countries that are key competitors. Yet, here in the United States, farmers must rely on existing technology to compete with the rest of the world.

If our regulatory system slips into sclerosis, we’ll surrender our great competitive advantage, in which the United States has led the way on technology and innovation. Very soon, Brazil and China will approve novel technologies before we do.

This is how we become a second-world country—not because others are beating us fair and square, but because we’re bogging ourselves down in red tape and broken rules.

I’ve seen what happens to farmers when governments ignore the rule of law. For six years, I invested in a farm in Ukraine, where my partners and I grew corn, soybeans, and several other crops. The venture ultimately ended because it was impossible to do business without paying massive bribes.

American farmers aren’t asking for no regulations at all, or even a phony "rubber stamp" procedure. We want predictable rules that help us grow safe and nutritious food, which is exactly what we’ve had for many years.

Now we risk losing it. USDA thinks it can flout federal law, apparently hoping that no one will notice or care.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack must lead and get the USDA regulatory train back on track.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Among the many tragedies of war is collateral damage: deaths and casualties of non-combatants who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time as well as the destruction of civilian property.

Nations at war try to keep collateral damage to an absolute minimum. At least the civilized ones do.

Trade wars also can deliver collateral damage—and in a new dispute with Canada and Mexico, the Obama administration is preparing to let innocents suffer. American consumers and farmers are about to pay a steep price.

The problem centers on a regulation abbreviated as COOL, which stands for "country-of-origin labeling." Despite the name, there’s nothing calm or trendy about COOL, because it forces packagers and retailers to obey strict labeling rules that describe where livestock was born, raised, and slaughtered.

That may sound reasonable. Why shouldn’t people know where their meat comes from? In its practical application, however, COOL bans the commingling of meat produced in different countries.

Canada and Mexico have rightly objected, saying that this amounts to illegal protectionism even as it masquerades as a consumer right. They’ve complained about losses totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

Those losses won’t affect only foreigners. They’ll filch from American pocketbooks too, as the cost of meat rises in grocery stores and restaurants.

This is crazy—the sort of job-killing policy that will make our sluggish economy recovery slow down instead of speed up.

We’re also throwing our regulatory regimes out of whack. Harmonized regulations should be a broad goal of trade policy, especially as the United States embarks on ambitious but sensitive trade talks with the European Union. Yet COOL ignores all of this, building artificial regulatory barriers to the flow of goods and services across borders.

And it gets worse. COOL violates America’s obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization. We’re "protecting" our markets from Canadian and Mexican meat without an adequate reason, such as public health. Now the WTO will let Canada and Mexico retaliate, making it harder for us to export certain American products.

In June, Canada released a long list of products that soon may face punitive tariffs because of COOL. Many involve meat, but lots don’t. In all, the targets come from 37 different product sectors. They include everything from cherries and cheese to chocolate and frozen orange juice. A number of items aren’t even agricultural, such as jewelry, steel tubes, and "swivel seats with variable height adjustment."

One of the targets on the list is close to my heart: corn. That’s what I grow here in Iowa. As with most American corn farmers, about one-third of my corn goes overseas, in a variety of forms.

If Canada slaps a special tariff on U.S. corn, it will hurt my bottom line. I’ll have a harder time selling what I grow to our northern neighbors. So will other corn farmers, upsetting the laws of supply and demand. What we grow ultimately will fetch lower prices.

This makes no sense. I don’t raise livestock or produce meat. Why should I suffer in a dispute over how meat is labeled? Why should factory workers who produce "swivel seats with variable height adjustment" watch their customer base erode? Why should American consumers pay higher prices to put food on their tables?

Well, that’s the nature of collateral damage. It’s an unintended consequence—though, in this particular case, the result is wholly predictable. The Obama administration, which likes to talk about its commitment to global trade, really ought to know better.

Canada’s list of retaliatory targets is still unofficial. Mexico has not yet published its own list, but will: A statement in May threatened that "the imposition of retaliatory measures" are just a matter of time.

Ottawa released its list in a last-ditch attempt to encourage a better solution. Mexico City will have the same idea in mind. Washington should heed these fair warnings before it’s too late.

The lesson should be obvious: In a trade war, everybody loses.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

When I first met Marc Van Montagu at a meeting of farmers in Brussels, I didn’t know who he was—but I was immediately impressed by his views on biotechnology. He was both honest and intelligent, and best of all he knew what he was talking about. Only later did I learn what he had accomplished as a scientist.

Now everybody else can know too, because Marc was just named as a co-recipient of the 2013 World Food Prize, noted as the ‘Nobel Prize" for agriculture.

The World Food Prize will honor Marc and two others for their significant body of work and research that has helped the Green Revolution blossom into the Gene Revolution.

Truth be told, genetically modified crops hardly need the accolade. They’ve been confirming their worth for nearly a generation, allowing farmers around the world to control weeds and pests and promising even greater advances in the future. Since their commercialization, farmers have planted and harvested more than 3.5 billion acres of biotech crops and people eat food derived from it every day.

About 12 percent of our planet’s arable land is planted with GM crops and more than 17 million farmers use biotechnology. Roughly 90 percent of those farmers are smallholders who choose GM crops because they make economic sense for themselves and their families in a manner that is sustainable for the environment and socially.

So it’s wonderful that three of biotechnology’s heroes will receive formal recognition from the World Food Prize. I’m hopeful that the attention they deserve and will now receive will provide a listening global audience, if only because they have so much to say—especially to the biotech skeptics in Europe who still must overcome irrational fears of a proven technology.

In addition to Marc, who is Belgian, this year’s winners are Dr. Mary-Dell Chilton and Dr. Robert T. Fraley of the United States. Working separately in the 1980s, they discovered through molecular research the key to plant cell transformation using recombinant DNA.

That’s the scientifically-correct way of stating that they discovered the key of how to produce crops that grow more food on less land—and all of it safe, as every serious scientist, organization, and regulatory agency around the world that has studied them will attest.

"Our new laureates have truly used science to multiply the harvest," said Ambassador Kenneth Quinn, president of the World Food Prize Foundation. He announced the winners last week, at a ceremony hosted by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who hailed the recipients "for their pioneering efforts and their tremendous contributions to biotechnology and to the fight against hunger and malnutrition." The formal award will take place in Des Moines, Iowa on October 17.

Marc grew up in Belgium during the Second World War, when his country rationed food. So he knows what it’s like to scrimp on meals, and why biotechnology is a key to fighting hunger—as well as why his native continent must rethink its ways.

"For me, [the World Food Prize] emphasizes the importance of GMO technology as a contributing factor to sustainable food production," he said. "I hope that this recognition will pave the way for Europe to embrace the benefits of this technology, an essential condition for global acceptance of transgenic plants."

Originally from Illinois, Dr. Chilton began her academic career at the University of Washington, but has worked at Syngenta for the last 30 years, helping the company develop seeds for farmers.

"The committee’s decision to award the World Food Prize to biotechnology researchers will help convey to consumers the value, utility, and safety of genetically modified crops," said Chilton.

Dr. Fraley, also from Illinois, worked at the University of California-San Francisco before Monsanto hired him in 1981. He has been there ever since, and led the company’s effort to develop the "Roundup Ready" crops that have proven so productive and popular.

"I really believe we have just scratched the surface on what is possible in bringing innovation to farmers who deliver food security to consumers around the world," said Fraley. "While there are those who may not support our advanced research in biotechnology, the need for food security and the opportunity for farmers around the world to meet the growing demand is much more important than any differences of opinion."

Let’s hope that these differences of opinion continue to wither away, as Europe and the rest of the world embraces the promise of biotechnology.

Maria Gabriela Cruz manages a 500 hectare farm in Elvas, Portugal that has been in their family for over 100 years. Growing maize, wheat, barley and green peas, they use no-till or reduced till methods on the full farm. She has grown biotech maize since 2006. Ms. Cruz is President of the Portuguese Association of Conservation Agriculture, a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network and the 2010 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

In the Philippines, apparently they do. Or at least they think they do.

Last month, my country’s Court of Appeals stopped field tests on genetically modified eggplants—crops that I would happily feed my own children and grandchildren.

We’ve been eating GM crops for years. I grow them on my farm in San Jacinto during the dry season. They’re such excellent crops that I plant them on the 12 hectares that I own and also rent an additional 3.5 hectares.

I’ve also grown eggplants. They’re the leading vegetable crop in the Philippines, where we call them talong. They come in many shapes and colors, from elongated or rounded to purple, violet, or green. Some even have white stripes.

Mothers like me can cook talong a hundred different ways, but one of everybody’s favorite dishes is called pinakbet. Talong is a main ingredient, along with other vegetables as well as fish or shrimp, all stirred together in a hot and delicious mix.

If you were to ask Filipinos to pick their favorite Filipino plate, pinakbet probably would win the contest.

I’m very concerned that the judges have ruled against a technology that would make it easier for farmers to grow talong and mothers to feed it to their children.

If their decision had been based in sound scientific reasoning, then it would make sense and be accepted. Farmers don’t want to hurt the environment and mothers don’t want to feed harmful food to their children.

But the ruling had nothing to do with science. The judges simply reacted to the lies of activist groups such as Greenpeace, whose well-fed leaders never have to wonder about their next meal.

Biotechnology is widely accepted around the world, where farmers have harvested more than 3.5 billion acres of it over the last 20 years.

A few of those acres have been mine. I started growing GM crops shortly after the death of my husband. They helped me get my life back together and gave me the financial means to send my children to school.

They also put food on the table. I mean this both figuratively and literally because in my home we eat what we grow—and our GM corn uses exactly the same pest-fighting technology that the Court of Appeals just rejected for talong.

This is ridiculous. How can a trait be acceptable in one crop but not in another?

My personal experience demonstrates what scientists all over the world have said: GM crops are a safe and proven option. That’s what the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, and many other groups have proclaimed, along with the National Academy of Science of Technology here in the Philippines.

One of the latest voices to endorse GM food is Michael Purugganan, a Filipino who is the dean of science at New York University, a preeminent university in the United States.

"When it comes to GM technology, [critics] ignore the overwhelming scientific consensus on the safety of GMO crops," he wrote in GMA News Online, responding to last month’s ruling. "Meanwhile, here in the U.S., I will eat GMO tortilla chips and eat GMO tofu. I hope to one day taste GMO pinakbet. And I do so fully aware that I have nothing to worry about."

I’ll take it a step further. Biotech crops aren’t merely just okay to eat. They’re actually better than non-biotech crops. They allow us to grow more food on less land, making them tools of conservation and sustainable agriculture. They also improve the health of farmers because they don’t require additional pesticide applications, which can be hazardous to the people who apply them directly to crops.

With its unfortunate decision, the Court of Appeals has hurt the international reputation of the Philippines, which now may be viewed as a foe of progress and technology. More importantly, it has hurt the prospects of ordinary Filipinos, from farmers who struggle to make a living to mothers who simply want safe and affordable ways to feed their children.

Rosalie Ellasus is a first-generation farmer, growing corn and rice in San Jacinto, Philippines. Rosalie allows her farm to be used as a demonstration plot for smallholder farmers to visit and learn from. She is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network

U.S. and EU trade diplomats must keep this slogan in mind as they prepare to negotiate a sweeping free-trade agreement between the United States and the European Union.

Success would deliver a big boost to economies on both sides of the Atlantic, as phony barriers to the flow of goods, services, and investments come down. Europe is already America’s largest export market, worth about $459 billion last year and supporting about 2.4 million jobs, according to federal statistics.

The good news is that we can do even better: One estimate says that a wise agreement would pump nearly $100 billion to the U.S. economy. It would function like a job-creating stimulus program, without costing taxpayers anything or adding to the national debt.

The bad news is that a few voices are already suggesting that we limit our expectations, especially in agriculture, even before formal talks begin next month. We’re hearing murmurs about how everything would go a lot more smoothly if only we didn’t have to argue about biotechnology.

But argue we must, because genetically modified crops are a fundamental issue for American farmers. This is a fight worth having.

Here in the United States, our science-based regulations approve biotechnology as a safe tool of sustainable agriculture. The technology allows us to grow more crops on less land, helping us feed the world and conserve resources at the same time. The vast majority of our corn, soybeans, and cotton are genetically modified, as they are throughout much of the western hemisphere.

In Europe, however, everything is political, including the regulatory process that controls what products farmers can use. Many scientific groups in Europe, such as Britain’s Royal Society, have endorsed GM crops. So have sensible environmentalists such as Mark Lynas. Yet European governments ignore these recommendations, preferring to let anti-biotech activists drive consumer ignorance and dictate policies.

So GM crops have become a major area of transatlantic disagreement—a non-tariff barrier to healthy commerce in food. The coming round of trade talks represents an excellent opportunity to change this by harmonizing rules and reaching a smart resolution.

We should seize this moment. Rather than running away from a difficult conversation, we should confront it and do our best to persuade Europe on the safety and sustainability of biotechnology.

It may not even be as hard as we fear.

Here’s a secret: Many Europeans actually want the United States to win this dispute.

Don’t get me wrong. Europe’s opposition to GM crops is strong and we should treat it seriously. Yet it may not be as formidable as some officials and pundits would have us believe.

Last November, I traveled to London for an agriculture conference. Its theme was "sustainable intensification of agriculture" but in reality the discussion was about the European regulatory system and how it stifles agriculture production. This politicized regulatory process is making it difficult for Europe to feed itself.

If the meeting had been in the United States, it would have been focused on technical issues, with panels talking about choosing the right seeds, battling weeds, and growing more food. In the London meeting it was obvious that the participants believed the greater challenge to agriculture was politics and unscientific regulation.

Farmers hate this, no matter where we live. We’d rather plant our fields and harvest our crops than fill out piles of paperwork and butt heads with bureaucrats.

An attendee from a European country surprised me with a private conversation: "Please push us on biotechnology." He believes Europe needs to accept GM foods and believes that can occur with pressure from America.

In other words, a number of Europeans understand and appreciate the virtue of GM crops. They’re ready and willing to talk. Along the way, they may make loud complaints about hardheaded American negotiators, but they’ll also budge from their position, make concessions, and allow progress.

Is this an optimistic view? Perhaps. But it makes sense to start these talks with a spirit of hopefulness and a desire to achieve.

When British Prime Minister David Cameron visited the White House last month, he spoke on how the United States and Europe should have wide-ranging conversations on trade: "That means everything on the table, even the difficult issues, and no exceptions."

Let’s take him at his word. Rather than taking biotechnology off the table, let’s make it a centerpiece.

John Reifsteck is a corn and soybean producer in Champaign County Illinois. He volunteers as a Board Member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

When a farmer discovered biotech wheat on a remote field in eastern Oregon in April, he found the agricultural equivalent of a needle in a haystack—a few stalks amid more than half a billion acres of wheat planted and harvested in the last dozen years.

The detection made headlines around the world not merely because the needle was hard to find but because it wasn’t supposed to exist at all: Genetically modified wheat was developed, tested, and proven safe for human consumption but it was not commercialized.

The last approved field-test planting of GM wheat in Oregon was in 2001, according to the Department of Agriculture. The most recent field test anywhere in the United States was in 2005. Since then, American farmers have grown more than 500 million acres of wheat. That’s an area larger than the state of Alaska.

Amid this enormous bounty of crops, someone spotted a small handful of plants that shouldn’t have sprouted from Oregon’s soil.

As a North Dakota wheat producer, the first thing I want you to know is that GM wheat doesn’t put anyone at risk. "The detection of this wheat variety does not pose a safety concern," said the USDA in a statement last week.

The technology in question—herbicide resistance that helps crops fight weeds—is well understood and commonly used in corn and soybeans. We eat safe and nutritious food derived from it every day. This trait was not commercialized in wheat for the simple economic worry that foreign buyers would refuse it because they have not yet embraced farming’s biotech revolution.

So the biggest question over the GM wheat in Oregon is not whether it’s safe—we know with confidence that it is—but rather how it got there in the first place. Authorities must launch a thorough investigation that examines every possibility, from the misplacement of seeds during field tests years ago to the survival of a few stray plants in the wild.

And let’s not discount the possibility of mischief: The enemies of biotechnology are thrilled by this discovery because they think it gives modern agriculture a black eye.

Meanwhile, let’s learn two lessons from this episode.

The first is that we have an outstanding system of food regulation in the United States. It’s so good that it can spot an isolated event in an Oregon wheat field and help us begin the process of understanding what happened.

The second is that we have nothing to fear from biotech wheat.

This is a safe product. Both farmers and consumers would benefit from its commercialization. It would allow wheat farmers to grow more food and reduce their production costs. These savings ultimately would find their way into grocery stores, where consumers would pay less for bread, cereal, pasta, and other products that come from our wheat fields.

This is more than merely a missed opportunity. Our wheat supply already suffers from a lack of biotechnology. Many farmers are switching away from wheat because it’s a less predictable crop than corn and soybeans, which have been improved so much by genetic modification.

On my own farm in North Dakota, we’ve been cutting back every year on wheat. We used to grow it on as much as 80 percent of our acreage. Now we’re down to about 10 percent, mainly because we prefer the advantages of biotechnology in corn and soybeans. My neighbors have been doing the same.

Convincing Americans about the advantages of biotechnology never has been the main issue. The United States, along with Canada and most of the Western hemisphere, already has accepted biotechnology as an excellent tool option for farmers and consumers.

It’s time for the rest of the world to catch up.

When news of the GM wheat discovery hit the media, our buyers in Japan and Korea immediately suspended purchases and promised to test samples. Europe said that it would increase its testing of wheat as well.

They almost certainly won’t find anything: It looks highly unlikely that any GM wheat entered the food supply. Korea’s first test results, announced on Monday, appeared to confirm this.

Yet the time to commercialize GM wheat is past due. The sooner everyone stops fussing over a safe and healthy product, the sooner farmers and consumers all over the world will benefit.

Terry Wanzek is a wheat, corn and soybean producer in North Dakota. He serves as a ND State Senator and volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Farmers believe that every day should be for the environment, because we depend on the environment to produce the food the world demands. We need good plants, good soil, and good weather. Without a good environment, we’re helpless.

That’s why we must take advantage of opportunities such as next week’s World Environment Day. Think of it as a second Earth Day. Each June 5, the United Nations sponsors WED. This year’s theme is "Think.Eat.Save." Organizers have a specific request: "reduce your footprint."

Here on my farm in Uruguay, that’s what we do all year round, thanks to advances in technology.

My family farms almost 6,000 hectares (roughly 15,000 acres) near the town of Mercedes, in Soriano. Our most important crops are soybeans, but we also grow corn, sorghum, wheat, barley, canola, oats, and grass seeds. The weather is variable but we never see snow, which allows us to plant for 12 months.

We started growing GM crops 16 years ago. It became obvious immediately that they’re excellent for conservation.

As the website for WED points out, agriculture accounts for 80 percent of the world’s deforestation. This is the result of pressure to convert wilderness into farmland, to keep pace with a booming global population. To protect what remains, we must produce more food on less land—and that’s exactly what biotechnology lets us do.

The first year we planted GM soybeans on our farm, in 1997, we tried it on 30 hectares. The results were amazing. Within two years, we had converted entirely to GM soybeans. When biotechnology came to corn in 2004, we quickly switched to it as well. Genetic enhancement drove our yields upward because these excellent crops are so good at fighting weeds and pests.

Our experience shows that science can help us produce more with less—the very definition of sustainable agriculture.

There are other benefits as well. We’re now able to do a much better job of maintaining natural pastures for a combined crop-cattle operation. This helps us preserve biodiversity.

Best of all, however, is our no-till farming system. Soil erosion is a huge challenge for farmers around the planet, but our soil is actually improving each year. Our crops pump carbon into the soil, and we can keep it there because we no longer need to fight weeds by tilling the soil after harvesting. At the end of the growing season, we simply leave the straw on top of the soil.

A friend of mine, Carlos Crovetto of Chile, puts it well: "Grains are for the people, straw and residues are for the soil."

GM crops make this possible.

Here’s another statistic from the WED website: Agriculture is responsible for 30 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

And here’s another benefit of biotechnology: Because we plant GM crops, our greenhouse gas emissions have dropped sharply. We’re doing our part to combat climate change.

I can plant all of my fields with just two big tractors, an air drill, a planter, a big sprayer, and two combines. I’ve seen much smaller farms that use a lot more equipment, spewing out carbon emissions at a far higher rate than we do.

GM crops allow us to reduce the number of times we have to drive over our fields, which means that our environmental footprint has shrunk.

It’s like we’ve reduced our shoe size. When does that ever happen?

Other advantages are harder to spot but they’re equally real. Consider tire wear. I can buy a tractor, use if for 8,000 hours, and sell it with the same tires. This is important because petroleum is an important ingredient in tire manufacturing. The more use we can get out of our tires, the better—it’s good for my bottom line as well as for the environment.

Unfortunately, many nations resist biotech crops because they don’t understand the benefits. Farmers like me in South America already know why GM farming makes sense, as do farmers in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere.

If we’re going to continue reducing footprints around the world, what we must do is spread the word—and on World Environment Day, the United Nations should help us.

With the election of Brazil’s Roberto Azevedo as the next director-general of the World Trade Organization, it’s time to hope for a "Nixon goes to China" moment.

In 1972, President Nixon traveled to Communist China and met with Mao Zedong, marking a new and more productive phase for relations between the United States and China. It was also a diplomatic feat that only a political leader with Nixon’s anti-Communist credentials could have pulled off. Just about anybody else would have suffered dearly in the fallout.

Perhaps in the future, we’ll speak of "Azevedo goes to Geneva."

That’s because the Brazilian, who will assume the position of Director General in September, may be just the person to revive the WTO at a turning point in its history.

Several commentators were quick to express skepticism about Azevedo. "Brazil has not been the most positive partner at the WTO," said Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico, in the Wall Street Journal. "Brazil doesn’t have the best credentials to lead the WTO. As a country that tends to be protectionist, it’s not a great champion of a multilateral trading system."

The European Union favored a different candidate, Herminio Blanco of Mexico. The United States remained officially neutral, though many Americans also seemed to prefer Blanco over Azevedo because he helped negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Whereas Mexico appears to have embraced global free trade, Brazil recently has moved to protect its own favored industries, even though it already has one of the world’s lowest rates of trade to GDP.

Despite these concerns, Azevedo may have a tremendous upside: Developing countries trust him as a champion of their interests. This could prove important, because they’ve become an obstacle to completing a new multilateral trade agreement that improves the flow of goods and services around the world.

In 2001, the WTO launched the "Doha round" of world trade talks. Yet these negotiations quickly fell into a stalemate. For all practical purposes, Doha is dead--and it’s been dead for a long time.

Its failure springs from many sources and there’s plenty of blame to spread around. Yet developing nations may have presented the most significant hurdle. Many of them approached the talks looking for a handout, believing that wealthier countries should make concessions, almost out of charity. They didn’t seem to understand the importance of opening their own markets to competition--and that any successful agreement involves a give and take from both sides.

Brazil played a central role in all of this. As a result, many developing countries believe Azevedo will be an ally at the WTO.

And they may be right, though not in quite the way they expect. Rather than convincing wealthy nations to rethink their own Doha strategies, the main challenge for Azevedo will be to persuade developing countries to reconsider past approaches.

Success is essential. As Azevedo noted at a news conference last week, the WTO "is clearly stuck." He must now get it unstuck--and it may take a figure with his special credibility among the leaders of developing nations to make it happen.

If the WTO doesn’t come unstuck, it will still serve the useful function of arbitrating disputes between its members. Yet it will have lost one of its chief purposes, which is to lower trade barriers.

It’s good to have big goals, but perhaps the WTO should think about playing small ball, at least for a short while. The Doha round was a swing for the fences. At this crucial juncture, however, it may be wiser to hope for a mere base hit--not a swing and a miss, but a solid knock that keeps the inning alive.

One idea may be to admit what everyone knows: Doha is dead, and it’s time to move on. Perhaps we need an entirely new round, with a new name.

That won’t magically change the geopolitical dynamics that caused WTO to reach its current impasse. Yet it could be an essential public-relations maneuver that revives global trade--and creates an opportunity for Azevedo to go to Geneva.

When Americans speculate that the United States is "becoming Europe," we don’t mean that our art museums are getting a lot better.

Instead, we worry about the encroachments of a growing bureaucracy that is smothering freedom and innovation.

Last Friday, in an unexpected announcement, the U.S. Department of Agriculture took an unfortunate step toward Europeanization when it delayed the approval of two crops that will help farmers control weeds and produce more food. The decision didn’t receive much immediate attention outside the agricultural press, but it sent a troubling signal about the future of farm technology that should concern all Americans.

At the heart of the controversy lie a couple of time-tested herbicides: dicamba and 2,4-D. Scientists have figured out a way for staple crops such as corn, soybeans, and cotton to resist these chemicals, which means that farmers can control weeds without hurting the plants they’re trying to grow.

This is hardly a radical development. As the USDA acknowledged last week, these herbicides "have been safely and widely used across the country since the 1960s." My father was using 2,4-D even before that, in the 1950s. It was the first herbicide he ever applied to his fields. It’s also one of the top ingredients in the weed-and-feed formulas that Americans apply to their lawns and gardens.

So why the sudden delay? Environmentalists complained that the introduction of these new crops will lead to the overuse of the two herbicides. This claim is at best unproven. Farmers certainly must pay attention to the development of herbicide resistance in weeds, but the answer to this problem is the advent of new technologies that keep us one step ahead of weed adaptations.

In other words, these new crops are part of the solution—and keeping safe products away from farmers just makes it harder for us to grow the food our country needs.

Farmers rely on effective methods of crop protection, including weed control. With them, we can grow more food on less land—and thereby reduce the pressure to convert wilderness into farmland. Environmentalists ought to join farmers in search of new conservation technologies, not oppose us in their safe implementation.

Of greater concern to me is the fact that the Center for Food Safety had threatened to sue the USDA if it didn’t perform an environmental impact study on its own initiative. These traits had already been under review by USDA for 3 years with no evidence of potential harm to humans or the environment. Using litigation to slow down or ban a safe product should concern all of us!

Farmers lose either way. The USDA’s bad decision means that these new crops won’t go on the market and be available to me and other farmers next year, as previously planned. Now we’ll have to wait until 2015 at the soonest. This postponement may not sound like much, but it contributes to a disturbing trend. In the United States, it’s becoming harder and harder to introduce new agricultural technologies.

America has led the world in boosting crop yields. Food is safer, more abundant, and more affordable than ever before. Rather than cheering on our ingenuity, however, bureaucrats increasingly want to hold it back.

We’re watching a major slowdown in new crop approvals. We’ve gone from leading to it now taking the United States three times as long as Argentina and Brazil to approve a new technology. The U.S. is going backwards while Brazil and Argentina are moving forward by effectively using internationally agreed upon science-based regulations. Innovation in agriculture technology has always has been one of the American farmer’s great advantages over his food-producing competitors. Now we’re handing it away, and for no good reason.

We need to return to sensible, science-based regulations—not shifting sands and unpredictable decrees from bureaucrats.

Europe already has traveled far down this fateful path. Its embrace of the "precautionary principle" has made it all but impossible to approve agricultural innovations, stifling the continent’s biotech industry. European farmers envy Americans, who can plant genetically modified crops. USDA’s decision on herbicide-resistant plants suggests that they may not be so envious in the future.

Earlier this year, the British writer Samuel Gregg published "Becoming Europe," a book on economic and cultural trends in the United States. He urged Americans to reject Europeanization and embrace their freedom-loving heritage. He also quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, the 19th-century Frenchman who studied our country: "The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults."

So here’s a message for USDA’s bureaucrats: Waste no time in repairing your crop-protection fault.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

When President Obama nominated Michael Froman as U.S. Trade Representative last week, he cracked a joke about an old friend.

"We went to law school together," said the president. "He was much smarter than me then. He continues to be smarter than me now."

Is Froman really smarter than President Obama, who graduated with highest honors from Harvard Law School? Who cares? The important point is that the men were students together more than two decades ago, when they labored over issues of the Harvard Law Review and built a personal bond that may hold the key to jump starting America’s trade agenda.

The Senate should move swiftly to confirm Froman, so that he can move on and push for the trade agreements with Asia and Europe that hold enormous potential to fuel economic growth and create jobs in the United States.

Froman is currently the president’s deputy national security advisor for international affairs. He has represented the president at meetings of the G8 and G20. President Obama has credited Froman with helping secure final approval of the free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea.

So Froman’s resume looks promising. Yet the thing that matters most may be his personal connection to the president: Froman has the president’s ear.

News reports indicate that after Harvard, the two men fell out of touch. In 2004, however, Froman learned that Obama was running for the Senate from Illinois. So he contacted his old pal, offered his services, and has been a close advisor ever since.

Froman knew Obama before it was cool.

This really matters. For a U.S. Trade Representative to succeed, he must enjoy the complete confidence of the White House. But that’s not sufficient. He also needs to have constant access to the president. If trade talks bog down, Froman will be able to phone the Oval Office--and know that President Obama will take his call and help him maintain positive momentum.

Perceptions are important as well. Trade diplomats from Brussels to Tokyo will know that Froman has a direct line to Obama--a fact that will encourage them to take Froman seriously as a negotiating partner.

This may carry a special payoff right now. The World Trade Organization is on the verge of selecting a new leader, meaning that the United States and the WTO could improve a troubled relationship.

Former U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, who left office two months ago, was in many ways a capable man. And he was a political ally of the president, but not an old friend. This may have played a small part in the Obama administration’s sluggish first-term trade agenda.

President Obama has talked a good game on trade, promising to double exports by 2015 and to pursue ambitious agreements with Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world.

The reality, however, however, has failed to match the rhetoric. Exports have not grown as quickly as the president vowed. The Trans Pacific Partnership remains a tantalizing possibility rather than a done deal. Trade talks with the European Union have yet to achieve liftoff. The Doha round of WTO negotiations is kaput.

Last year, President Obama even suggested eliminating the office of U.S. Trade Representative, combining its duties with those of the Secretary of Commerce. Although the federal government should strive to reduce its bureaucratic bulk, this was a lousy idea. The United States needs a cabinet-level official whose exclusive portfolio is trade diplomacy.

The fact that President Obama nominated Froman on the same day he announced the nomination of Penny Pritzker as Commerce Secretary suggests that the president has abandoned the plan to consolidate these two jobs. This is a welcome development.

To a certain extent, however, Froman’s abilities and authority are just details. More than anything else, a robust trade agenda requires a president who is fully committed to breaking down barriers that prevent the flow of goods and service across borders.

The nomination of Froman is a good sign. Now the Senate should do its part to help the Obama-Froman friendship move into its next and most important phase.

A newly elected government provides a country with a rare opportunity for a fresh start—and President Uhuru Kenyatta’s nomination this week of Felix Kiptarus Kosgey to become Kenya’s next Cabinet Secretary for Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries offers my nation a remarkable opening to make a hard push for real food security.

Success, however, will require President Kenyatta, his deputy Ruto, Agriculture Secretary nominee Kosgey, and the rest of our new government to set aside the bad mistakes of the recent past and embrace the bright future of biotechnology.

There’s every reason to hope that they will. At the launch of the Jubilee Coalition manifesto in February, Kenyatta and Ruto promised to "put food and water on every Kenyan’s table." At his inauguration on April 9, Kenyatta reaffirmed his government will implement the manifesto in total.

This is both a tall order and a worthy goal—and one of the surest ways to achieve it is by accepting the latest advances in agricultural biotechnology, recognizing that they have become conventional practices in many countries and should become so here as well.

Everywhere farmers have had the chance, they have adopted genetically modified crops. Last year, more than 17 million farmers around the world planted more than 170 million hectares of GM crops, according to a new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.

This is an all-time high. Moreover, farmers in poor countries made it possible: For the first time, developing nations accounted for more than half of the world’s GM crop plantings.

Unfortunately, as much as Kenyan farmers have hailed the Green Revolution of the 20th century, they have not yet participated in this Gene Revolution of the 21st century.

Our scientists have made strides toward developing biotech crops that would flourish in our soil and climate, but a toxic mix of scientific illiteracy and political pressure has prevented the commercialization of these promising plants. To make matters even worse, the previous government banned the importation of GM foods into Kenya and ordered the Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation to remove all GM foods from the shelves of grocery stores.

This tragic decision came last November, in the wake of a controversial French study that claimed to find a connection between GM food and tumors in rats. The results were immediately widely debunked by renowned scientists from around the world. Yet the political activists whose personal ideology opposes agricultural biotechnology—many of them wealthy Europeans who don’t have to wonder about their next meal—managed to smear a vital tool for fighting hunger.

Kenyatta’s cabinet, guided by Agriculture Secretary nominee Kosgey cannot move swiftly enough to overturn the previous government’s misbegotten ban on GM food. It may be the single most significant step they can take to improve our nation’s food security.

They should accept what respected organizations ranging from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Britain’s Royal Society have said for a long time: GM food is safe to grow and eat. We have nothing to fear from it—and so much to gain.

Sub-Saharan Africa lags the world in food production. While farmers in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and the United States have jumped at the chance to take advantage of high-yielding GM crops, farmers in Kenya and its neighbors have been relegated to the sidelines.

Last year, Sudan became only the fourth African country to permit the planting of GM crops, following the leads of Burkina Faso, Egypt, and South Africa.

The boost in farm productivity alone is enough to justify Kenya’s adoption of crop biotechnology, because it would help us feed a growing population. But the benefits would not stop there. Improved access to GM seeds would create jobs by supplying the raw materials for our textile industries. Everyone would benefit.

It would be great to see Kenya join the global biotech movement. Even better, though, would be to watch a truly forward-looking Kenya not merely join, but lead.

Kenyatta and Kosgey should refuse to let our continent continue to fall behind the rest of the world. With the proper leadership, they can show Africa the way to a better tomorrow—and a future in which we enjoy true food security.

Gilbert Arap Bor grows corn (maize), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya. He also teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus. Mr. Bor is the 2011 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

When the biotechnology antagonists try to stoke fear by warning about "superweeds," they make these plants sound like an alarming cross between the unruly dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park" and the carnivorous botany in "Little Shop of Horrors."

"I was talking to a farmer from Arkansas and he’s got weeds that are now eight feet tall, they’re the diameter of my wrists, and they can stop a combine in its tracks," Gary Hirshberg, a leading anti-biotech activist, told U.S. News & World Report last year. "The only way [farmers] can stop them is to go in there with machetes and hack them out."

Gary is actually right -but this is nothing new, and has nothing to do with biotechnology. Hand weeding has been practiced since farming started. One of the least favorite jobs of my youth was walking through fields cutting out weeds. It is hard work. You are not just battling weeds, but also the weather and insects. Often when you started in the morning the crops you were walking through were soaking wet from dew, and the air was cold. By the end of the day the heat and humidity was stifling, and no matter you were in the field there were flying, crawling and biting bugs. There was nothing noble about hand weeding; it is simply hard, uncomfortable work.

Weeds are among farmers’ oldest foes because they compete with the crops that we grow for food. They suck moisture from the ground, steal nutrients from the soil, and block sunlight from the sky. Our job is to minimize the harm they do in our fields.

We can control weeds from season to season, but the weeds will always be with us. They’ll never suffer a final defeat. We fight them and they fight back. They’re always responding to everything farmers do, in a generational struggle for survival. My dad, who was also a farmer, faced weeds that I’ve never seen and he probably wouldn’t recognize some of the weeds I encounter in my fields.

Farmers are playing chess with nature, in an endless game with new pieces added to the board each year. We will never checkmate nature; instead our goal is to maximize what we produce given the challenges that are part of farming.

Just in my generation farmers have acquired new tools to combat weeds. Herbicides that help control weeds have transformed agriculture. They are safe, effective and reduce the amount of tillage farmers need to do to their fields. Less tillage also means less soil erosion and less energy used to produce our crops.

Scientists in the last few years have developed a new form of crop through genetic modification. It possesses the ability to resist a safe herbicide called glyphosate. This development has allowed farmers to spray glyphosate, killing weeds but not the crops they’re trying to grow.

Suddenly we were able to raise more crops on less land. Glyphosate was so good that we even decreased our herbicide use.

Within a few years, these GM crops became a conventional part of agriculture. Today, the vast majority of the corn, soybeans, and cotton in the United States are immune to glyphosate. Farmers embraced these crops because they made so much sense, for both economic and environmental reasons.

Yet nature isn’t static. It changes all the time, and so some weed species have begun to build a resistance to glyphosate and other herbicides. These are the "superweeds" the anti-technology activists are warning us about.

Except that there’s nothing "super" about them. They are ordinary weeds and their emergence was expected. Nobody predicted that glyphosate-resistant crops represented a lasting victory over weeds--at least not anybody who understands how nature works.

The people who complain the loudest about these weeds tend not to be the farmers who have to confront them in the fields. I would appreciate their concern if I didn’t also know that they aren’t really worried about my ability to produce nutritious and affordable food. Instead, they’re using propagandistic words and phrases to frighten the public and push a personal ideological agenda in opposition to crop biotechnology.

Their real goal is to enact public policies that will make farming harder, drive up grocery-store prices for consumers, and deny everyone an important tool of land conservation.

If they succeed, "superweeds" will be only one of our problems.

Meanwhile, those of us who work the land rather than play politics must now return to the familiar challenge of coming up with new ways to fight an old battle. And we’ll succeed, as long as we can rely on the twin powers of scientific technology and human ingenuity. That is what farmers do.

John Reifsteck is a corn and soybean producer in Champaign County Illinois. He volunteers as a Board Member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

There has been some serious misinformation about the Farmers Assurance Provision running through the anti-biotech community that I would like to address personally. Maybe you’ve heard some voices rail against the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" – a nickname invented to infuriate other anti-technology activists and hopefully raise support for their campaign to ban or at least slow down the planting of GM crops.

With groups like the Center for Food Safety, Mother Jones Magazine, Food Democracy Now and Food & Water Watch – each with an anti-technology in agriculture agenda – noted as their source of information, it’s time for farmers who use the technology to speak up and talk about what the provision actually does.

Included in a spending bill recently signed by President Obama, The Farmer Assurance Provision has a simple purpose: It assures farmers like me that frivolous junk-science lawsuits won’t stop them from planting safe and healthy crops that have been USDA approved for planting after passing years of rigorous testing. This modest measure merely codifies case law already developed by the Supreme Court as well as the current practices of the Department of Agriculture.

Shortly after approval of the Farmer Assurance Provision, an anti-biotech website actually described it as an act of "fascism."

How do you have a reasonable discussion with an activist who equates a legal measure that received bipartisan support in Congress and backing from the White House with the horrors of Nazi Germany?

I’ve grown biotech crops on my farm for twenty years. I choose these crops because they let me grow more food on less land—the very definition of sustainable agriculture. Along the way, these crops help me make more efficient use of resources such as water, fertilizer, and fuel while protecting the soil.

In other words, these crops make sense for both economic and environmental reasons. They’re an important tool for me as a farmer and they’re good for all of us as consumers who want sustainable food at a reasonable price.

Litigation is the root of the problem this provision addresses. It is not a food safety or environment protection issue.

Around the globe, scientists and regulators have studied biotech crops and deemed them safe, from the American Medical Association to the World Health Organization.

Yet biotechnology faces ongoing opposition from an ideological movement that will stop at nothing to smear farming practices that work effectively and safely to feed my family and yours. Some have a misguided, anti-scientific agenda. Others are just special-interest groups: Certain elements of the organic-food industry worry that biotechnology puts their expensive food products at a competitive disadvantage.

Whatever their motives, biotechnology’s foes have failed to block these needed and proven effective farming tools. So they’ve resorted to legal harassment, filing nuisance lawsuits against crops that farmers already have received authorization to plant. That’s what happened to genetically modified sugar beets a few years ago.

The beets employed a weed-defeating technology already at work in corn and soybeans. Farmers were eager to take advantage of this tool, so they welcomed this new crop.

The lawsuit came five years later. It didn’t charge that biotech beets were unsafe for human consumption or that they harmed the environment. Instead, it raised a technical legal concern in the Department of Agriculture’s environmental assessment and demanded an even more comprehensive impact statement.

It was the sort of allegation that only a paper-pushing bureaucrat could love.

A federal judge responded by ordering a do-over. And then, despite no evidence of any potential harm, he took an extra, radical step, demanding the destruction of 95 percent of America’s sugar beet plants.

Imagine the plight of sugar-beet farmers. The government had approved a certain crop for widespread commercial planting. After several years of success, a single judge told them to wipe out a whole season of planting due to a technical violation that had no bearing on the health of people or the environment.

Fortunately, the judge’s order was overturned on appeal, ending a chaotic period of confusion and struggle. In time, the Department of Agriculture completed its comprehensive impact statement and determined that sugar beets were safe to plant - again. Separately, the Supreme Court ruled that courts can’t yank crop approvals on technicalities—they should let farmers proceed, at least temporarily, during moments of additional regulatory review.

The new provision takes the Supreme Court’s decision and gives it the force of federal law. This reasonable step provides farmers with a little more confidence that ridiculous lawsuits won’t uproot settled practices in an instant.

That’s why it’s called the Farmer Assurance Provision—it protects us from the caprices of anti-biotech activists, and provides us with the assurance we need to go about our business of growing safe, nutritious, and affordable food.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Everybody should eat a balanced diet, consuming the right types and amounts of food to ensure proper nutrition.

Agricultural soil needs a balanced diet as well, so that it can produce healthy crops.

That’s why fertilizer is so important. It’s the food that feeds the soil. Farmers everywhere must have easy access to it, especially in the developing world, where it’s often in short supply.

Without fertilizer, soil starves. Crops don’t grow as well as they should. The yields of farmers drop. People suffer.

So healthy people depend on healthy soil, fed by fertilizer.

As a farmer in India, I see malnutrition everyday. It’s a huge problem in my country, and it has many sources—but one of the main causes of human malnutrition in India is soil malnutrition. We don’t feed our soil the balanced diet it needs. As a result, our people don’t eat well enough.

A new report from the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management estimates that nitrogen and other mineral fertilizers nourish about half the people in the world. Without these inputs, in other words, about half of humanity would go hungry. So more than 3.5 billion people owe their health to fertilizers.

As successful farmers know, however, you can’t just "dump" fertilizer on cropland. That’s like eating a meal full of empty calories—they may fill your belly, but they’re harmful to your long-term health.

Together, they feed the soil—and the soil feeds the crops that feed us.

Sometimes, however, farmers try to get away with feeding the soil only one nutrient—and in India; the government actually encourages this bad idea. In a misguided attempt to protect domestic industries from foreign competition, New Delhi subsidizes nitrogen for agriculture. As a result, many farmers who don’t understand the basics of soil nutrition wrongly believe that nitrogen is all they need. Some even think that the more nitrogen they use, the better off they are.

The truth is, that balanced soil nutrition, using nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium is necessary for growing healthy crops. Without that balance, crops may grow quickly, taking on a deep green that makes them look healthy on first glance, but often they don’t mature properly, as plants spend their energy on foliage rather than on grain. These plants also have a tendency to attract more pests. This creates an additional challenge for farmers, and it may lead to an overreliance on pesticides.

Poor fertilization practices make it harder for others to eat because these miscalculations add up, affecting the food supply. The systematic misapplication of fertilizer causes India to grow less food than it should. One estimate claims that our corn yield lags behind rates in other countries by as much as 45 percent, all because the government provides an incentive for farmers to rely too much on nitrogen.

Just as a poor diet will have long-term health consequences, fertilizer mistakes have a way of lingering long past the moment of the error. It takes time, energy, and resources to restore damaged soil to an original condition. Inexpensive soil tests can help many smallholder farmers from making bad mistakes in the first place. The results of those tests each season will help these farmers know what fertilizer must be applied to nourish the soil and maximize their yield.

Better soil leads to better living—and it all starts with a balanced diet, both for people as well as for the earth.

Mr. V. Ravichandran owns a 60 acre farm at Poongulam Village in Tamil Nadu, India where he grows rice, sugar cane, cotton and pulses (small grains). He is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

When people in the United States and Europe think about New Zealand at all, a few notions usually pop into their heads: Our islands are far away, they’re pristine, and they’re the visually stunning backdrops to movies such as "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings."

We also have the best rugby team in the world, though the Americans don’t care and the Europeans won’t admit it.

Despite the vast distance between us and just about everybody else, New Zealand is not isolated. We’re tightly tied to the global economy. Farmers like me are especially connected because our government doesn’t subsidize agriculture.

That makes us different from farmers in many other countries, where subsidies are routine. Yet at a basic level, we’re a lot like farmers in Indiana, Italy, or just about anywhere. We recognize that the land is our lifeblood--and we want to use modern technology to produce food.

This became clear to me on a trip to the United States last year, when I participated in the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Roundtable in Des Moines, Iowa. A few of my fellow farmers introduced me to a new term: "sustainable intensification." In two words, it describes what should be the goal of farmers around the planet: We need to grow more with less, while at the same time preserving the environment and remaining economically profitable.

We’re trying to do our part here in New Zealand, at our farm near the town of Methven on the South Island. On several hundred acres, we grow a variety of crops, including wheat, ryegrass, radish, carrots, and barley. We also run a dairy operation milking 1,250 cows.

We’re under constant pressure to do more with less. The economic reality of being fully exposed to global markets due to the lack of subsidies forces me to keep down the costs of production. Policy changes are increasingly limiting our water use and nitrate outputs, which affects our ability to apply fertilizer and the stocking rate on the land. We are always trying to grow the best crops at the right time in the face of climate conditions.

Technology is one of our most important allies. We use crop sensors, electromagnetic mapping, zonal and grid soil sampling. If an affordable new technology can give us a slight advantage, we seize it.

These are all keys to sustainable intensification. So is biotechnology. In many nations, farmers can beat back weeds and pests with genetically modified crops. As a result, they’re producing huge amounts of food.

We don’t enjoy the GM option in New Zealand, where biotech crops are practically nonexistent. They’re grown in a few highly regulated test plots for research purposes. Ordinary farmers like me have no access to them.

That’s okay for now, because existing GM seeds don’t satisfy our particular needs. Many of the diseases and pests that plague farmers elsewhere don’t occur here, and our stringent border controls aim to keep it that way. At most, biotechnology could assist in a few niche markets.

But that will change as biotechnology matures and tackles new challenges. Drought resistance is an especially attractive trait. Farmers everywhere seek to conserve water--and here, we’re working to get the most from our moisture through intensive irrigation management.

Plants that make more efficient use of water are the very essence of sustainable intensification. As biotechnology begins to deliver these innovations, we’ll need to take full advantage of them. Water is the biggest issue that is facing the world and biotechnology will be one of the key drivers to increase water use efficiency.

There are other possibilities as well, including crops with improved nitrogen response and varieties of wheat that people with gluten intolerance can consume.

New Zealand is a small country, with a population of about 4.4 million people, which is roughly equal to metropolitan Boston or Phoenix. We’re pretty small players in the business of global food production.

That’s the other thing about sustainable intensification: To meet the world’s swelling demand for food, we must use every resource we have. That includes boosting yields on huge farms in Kansas, helping Africa meet its full potential as a breadbasket, and making sure that even far-off New Zealand has the best technology to make the most of what we can contribute.

That’s the popular description of the upscale grocery store. Last year, in a Consumer Reports survey, Whole Foods tied with Jewel-Osco as America’s most expensive supermarket.

Now its prices almost certainly will go up.

Whole Foods announced on March 8 that starting in 2018, it will require labels on all items in its stores that contain genetically modified ingredients.

The Austin, Texas-based chain is a private company making a business choice. It has the right to stock certain goods and not others. If it wants to insist on labels for GMO foods, then it may do so.

The rest of us can exercise our own rights--including our right not to shop there. Demanding special labels on GMO products won’t just make grocery-store bills rise, it will also spread misinformation about safe and nutritious food.

Whole Foods wants consumers to think of its stores as places where health-conscious people shop. Its slogan is "where great tasting food is only natural." This marketing strategy has led to incredible success. With 339 stores now operating in the United States and Canada and more on the way, Whole Foods is one of the fastest-growing food retailers on the planet.

"We are the first national grocery chain to set a deadline for full GMO transparency," says a press release. "We will work [with suppliers] as they transition to sourcing non-GMO ingredients or to clearly labeling products with ingredients containing GMOs."

The only problem--other than the added expense, which surely will be passed on to shoppers--is the profound misperception. There’s no nutritional difference between food with GMO ingredients and food without, so labels can’t convey useful consumer information. In fact, labels will send the opposite message, hinting that a problem exists when this simply isn’t true.

GMO foods are safe to eat. That’s the conclusion of every scientific and regulatory agency that has studied the question, from the American Medical Association to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to the World Health Organization.

A few days after Whole Foods announced its new policy, the editorial page of the New York Times--one of the most liberal newspapers in the country--voiced its skepticism. "There is no reliable evidence that genetically modified foods now on the market pose any risk to consumers," it said. "For now, there seems little reason to make labeling compulsory."

The Times went on to make a common-sense suggestion. Consumers who are determined to avoid GMO foods already may do so. They can select organic food, whose federally certified labels already mark products that don’t contain GMO ingredients.

Even people who do this, however, should not operate under the illusion that organic food is healthier than conventional and more affordable varieties.

Last October, a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics said that organic food and non-organic food are nutritionally equivalent. The key is to eat a balanced diet.

A month earlier, Stanford researchers published their own report that showed much the same thing. "Some believe that organic food is always healthier and more nutritious," said Crystal Smith-Spangler of Stanford’s medical school. "We were a little surprised that we didn’t find that."

Perhaps Whole Foods should require labels that say: "May contain GMO ingredients, not that it matters." Or: "Don’t pay high prices for organic food because it isn’t any better for you."

Then again, that would undercut Whole Foods’ very reason for being.

In a grand irony, Whole Foods criticized food labeling last fall, when Californians voted on Proposition 37, which would have mandated special labels for foods with GMO ingredients. Initially, Whole Foods backed Prop 37, but the chain also publicized its "reservations," due to "consumer confusion" and "costly litigation", ultimately ending its support of the ballot initiative.

Prop 37 was a bad idea that would have raised grocery-store bills and enriched trial lawyers. At first, polls indicated that the measure would pass. In the end, following a public-education campaign, voters had the good sense to reject it.

That’s what happens when consumers know the Whole Truth.

Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He volunteers as a board member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Late is better than never: President Obama finally has requested that Congress grant him Trade Promotion Authority, a power he should have requested long ago.

The United States simply cannot pursue an effective trade agenda without a president who has the ability to bargain with other countries and send each proposed trade deal to Congress for an up-or-down vote.

"Such authority will guide current and future negotiations, and will thus support a jobs-focused trade agenda," says a new report from the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Now Congress must do its part and approve TPA as soon as possible. Democratic senator Max Baucus of Montana and Republican congressman Dave Camp of Michigan are already working on the legislation.

And instead of giving TPA an expiration date, as in the past, they ought to propose making TPA permanent. That way, our country’s trade policy won’t fall hostage so easily to partisan bickering.

Congress not only has the right but also the duty to oversee U.S. trade practices. What it absolutely should not do, however, is try to tamper with trade diplomacy. Our partners want to negotiate with a single entity: the U.S. trade representative, acting on behalf of the president. They don’t want to haggle with 535 members of the House and Senate.

Bad things happen when Congress gets too involved in trade policy. We’re seeing the expensive results right now in a maddening new controversy over ractopamine, a feed additive that helps livestock produce lean meat.

Ractopamine is safe, widely accepted, and approved by all of the appropriate U.S. and international regulatory agencies. Farmers like me have been using it for years in cattle and hogs. It helps us supply good lean, healthy meat that consumers ask for at affordable prices.

Last month, however, Russia decided to block imports of U.S. meat from animals treated with ractopamine. Moscow claims a scientific rationale for its ban, but its real motive is retaliation: It seeks revenge against members of Congress who have tried to pressure Russia on its human-rights abuses in return for its support as a member of the World Trade Organization and preferred trading status with the U.S.

Let’s not kid ourselves about the situation in Russia. Freedom House, a non-profit watchdog group, classifies that nation as "not free." Its people lack civil liberties that most Americans and other Westerners take for granted.

Who pays the price for Russia’s sins? Not Russian oppressors, but American farmers. In the wake of Russia’s ractopamine retaliation, we’ve seen hog prices plummet. They fell even further when China followed Russia’s lead, for its own geopolitical purposes.

The actions of Russia and China have cost American meat producers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost exports this year. I’m already feeling the financial squeeze here in Iowa.

This is an unnatural disaster for America’s heartland. It’s like an anti-stimulus bill that sucks the economic life from a vital sector. To make matters worse, ordinary Russians aren’t any better off.

The impulse to help Russians is a good one. As Congress tried to put its idealism into practice, however, it gave birth to a painful unintended consequence. Because of congressional meddling, American farmers now suffer from the sorry state of human rights in Russia. It almost defies logic.

Yet it provides a powerful illustration of why the president needs TPA. Without it, trade agreements get bogged down in the minutiae of congressional agendas over everything from labor conditions to the environment.

TPA preserves the ability of Congress to accept or reject trade pacts, but it also gives the executive branch the authority to reach sensible deals that will create jobs and boost exports.

It’s an indispensable tool for achieving consensus on common objectives.

President Obama has ambitious trade goals for his second term. He has committed himself to a huge increase in exports between now and 2015. He hopes to complete the Trans Pacific Partnership, a big round of talks that could improve trade ties between the United States and Pacific Rim nations, most notably Japan. The President also has pledged to push for a trade agreement with Europe--a deal that promises to jump start economies on both sides of the Atlantic.

In asking for TPA, President Obama has taken a very important and necessary step. Now Congress must act and approve TPA permanently—for this president and the ones to follow.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

As Catholic cardinals selected Pope Francis in Rome on Wednesday, we watched an ancient church at its most medieval: obedient to tradition, cloaked in secrecy, and waiting for white smoke. The papal conclave appears positively anti-modern.

Yet in another sense, the Vatican stands in the vanguard of science and technology. It’s one of the world’s strongest supporters of genetically modified crops.

Many of us are still trying to learn about the new pontiff. We know a few things already. He is not only a man of faith, but also science--a chemist, by training. He’s from Argentina, whose farmers rely heavily on GM crops. And he professes a concern for the poor, who have the most to gain from 21st-century food production.

Farmers of all religious persuasions should take comfort from these views. "He will be able to better understand the Latin American continent--not only the poverty and the exclusion, but also the wealth of these lands," said Eugenio Lira, secretary-general of the Mexican Episcopal Conference, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Growing up, I went to Catholic school. I’ve given my own kids a Catholic education, at least when I could afford it--and when I couldn’t, I’ve regretted the result. Our family eats fish on Fridays, even when it’s not Lent.

Catholicism has been an essential part of my life.

And that’s why I was so heartened several years ago to learn of my church’s stance on GM food.

In 2009, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which advises the Holy See on scientific questions, organized a conference on farm biotechnology. It soon came out with a ringing endorsement: "There is a moral imperative to make the benefits of genetically engineered technology available on a larger scale to poor and vulnerable populations who want them, and on terms that will enable them to raise their standards of living, improve their health, and protect their environment."

Ever since I started growing biotech crops more than a decade ago, I’ve believed much the same thing. I saw the outstanding benefits of these plants with my own eyes: All of sudden, we were able to produce more food on less land. This was great for farmers, consumers, and conservation.

The advantages of GM crops seemed, for lack of a better word, miraculous.

They were certainly a blessing. As we produced an abundance of food, we became better able to help the needy here in New Jersey. A group of us formed Farmers Against Hunger. Biotech crops gave us a powerful new tool to generate surplus food and turn it into meals for our neighbors.

The Pontifical Academy of Sciences understood the possibilities. Although its report didn’t amount to an official church teaching, it gave moral weight to the case for GM crops.

"We urge those who oppose or are skeptical about the use of genetically engineered crop varieties and the application of modern genetics generally to evaluate carefully the science, and the demonstrable harm caused by withholding this proven technology from those who need it most," said the academy.

Vatican City may be tiny in size--at 110 acres, it’s smaller than my farm--but it’s also a sovereign state. In Europe, no government has a more advanced and charitable view of how to defeat hunger and malnutrition.

Not that the Vatican has a lot of competition. The European Union’s disapproval of GM crops is both ignorant and tragic. It’s bad enough that farmers in France, Italy, and Poland can’t grow GM crops the way we do in the United States and throughout the Western hemisphere. It’s even worse that European attitudes still shape the policies of many former European colonies, especially in Africa.

Because of Europe’s unscientific views, many developing nations have refused to adopt the hunger-fighting, life-saving tools of biotechnology. As a result, people who have the most to gain are undernourished or starving.

The Roman Catholic Church often comes under harsh criticism for its throwback ways. I still remember when our church held Sunday Mass in Latin.

When it comes to the technology of food production, however, the Vatican remains true to its oldest principles while also standing at the forefront of science.

Let’s hope Pope Francis shares this humane vision--and that Europe and the rest of the world join biotechnology’s growing flock.

John Rigolizzo, Jr. is a fifth generation farmer, raising fresh vegetables and field corn in southern New Jersey. The family farm produces for retail and wholesale markets. John is a volunteer board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

On a trip to Germany a few years ago, I wandered into the meat section of a grocery store. What I saw astonished me.

The beef section in the meat case was very small and the prices were very high – the price of a very average cut of beef was similar to what we would expect to pay for a prime cut of beef in a very high end grocery store. It appeared to me that European families had very little choice – in either quality or price – when they purchased beef for a family meal.

Europeans have no idea what they’re missing.

It’s just one more reason why Washington must push for a robust free-trade agreement with the European Union. If American beef exports enjoyed better access to European markets, our ranchers and processors would experience a boom of job-creating growth.

President Obama said as much in his State of the Union speech: "Trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs."

Yet very few are in the beef industry right now.

It wasn’t always this way. A generation ago, Europe was America’s second-largest market for beef. Within a few years, however, our presence in the grocery stores and restaurants of London, Paris, and Rome plummeted. We went from selling 18 percent of our beef exports to Europe in 1989 to selling just 3 percent in 1994.

Consumers didn’t turn against us, but public perceptions did. Following a series of hormone scandals in the 1970’s and 1980’s, Europeans experienced a period of anti-scientific hysteria, concerned that beef produced from animals that had received growth hormones posed a risk to human health.

So they banned it.

The ban was not science-based and not needed: Growth hormones are a safe and conventional element of beef production.

Growth hormones are in fact an important part of sustainable food production. They allow us to do more with less. Cattle reach their proper weight in fewer days and with less feed, allowing quality to go up and costs to go down.

In Europe, however, ignorance and politics trumped science. The ban went into force and Americans have paid an economic price ever since.

At first, we turned to the World Trade Organization, which was established in part to adjudicate these types of disputes. The WTO ruled in our favor, observing that there’s no scientific rationale for the ban. It allowed the United States to impose retaliatory tariffs on a range of European products. This was supposed to encourage Europe to come to its senses.

Two decades have passed, and the EU continues to resist. Its illegal ban on U.S. beef has stayed in place, and the retaliatory tariffs have caused American consumers to pay more than they should for Roquefort cheese and other imports.

We need to try a new approach--and a broad-based free-trade agreement between the United States and the EU is exactly the right forum for dealing with the problem.

The good news is that although a pact would benefit both sides, the Europeans appear to want one desperately. That means they may be unusually willing to alter their hardline stance on beef, which their officials know to be wrongheaded.

We’ve already seen at least one initial concession. The EU recently lifted a ban on meat washed with lactic acid, which safely removes contaminants such as E. coli from food. This was another unscientific prohibition of a common practice in the United States

These important steps suggest that larger compromises could come soon.

In free-trade negotiations, agriculture is usually one of the trickiest sectors--and it will definitely be the toughest part of any deal with the EU. In addition to the ban on beef, we must also confront the EU’s politically (not science or health)-based resistance to biotech crops.

There is a great price to be paid by all when countries allow non-scientific trade barriers to stay in place. Reduced investment in productivity enhancing technologies and reduced trade between countries are just the tip of the iceberg. Unless we work together to make sure that politics and perceptions are not allowed to over-ride science, the price for global food security will also go up.

Right now, however, anything looks possible--and anybody who lays eyes on the meat section of a European grocery store will see how much we all have to gain.

Hope Pjesky and her family are farmers / ranchers in northern Oklahoma where they raise cattle and wheat. Hope volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Everyone loves an underdog, which is why Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman received such good press last week.

NPR called his recent trip to the Supreme Court "a classic case of the little guy taking on the big one," because he’s the defendant in a lawsuit filed by Monsanto, the seed company. USA Today compared the legal battle to "David vs. Goliath."

In this telling, however, we should view the consequences should Mr. Bowman win. His effort to circumvent intellectual property rights threatens the future of modern agriculture and food production in the United States and around the world.

He may look like a little guy, but he’s fighting against the interests of little guys everywhere. Not unlike like Mr. Bowman I grow soybeans on a family farm in the American heartland. My fifth generation farming legacy has taught me the asset of legitimate investment of time and money. Building from a strong foundation pays its own rewards and my ability to purchase high yielding pest resistant seed has more benefits than just my farm’s profits. Clean air, water and ample food to feed the world’s growing population are also at the heart of this conversation.

When high technology seed came to the market place in the late 1990’s I quickly recognized the value it brought to my farm. Because of this I’m currently able to select from a broad selection of cutting edge seeds capable of adapting to my farm’s variable planting/growing challenges. Today, I’m growing more food on less land than ever before. The seed trait called into question by Mr. Bowman is the same which has allowed me to switch to no-till farming methods while using fewer chemical sprays. On a broad note the biotech seed in question has allowed Iowa to employ no-till across nearly 60% of its soybean acres. This has a direct reduction on soil erosion, leading to clean waters--an essential advantage in our part of Iowa, where rolling hills define the terrain.

The genetically modified crops that we produce are safe, healthy, and beneficial tools of scientific innovation. Their high yields allow me and other American farmers to compete in world markets. A new report from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications says that 17.3 million global farmers (over 15 million are small, resource-poor farmers from developing countries) planted more than 420 million acres with GM crops last year, a new record.

Biotech seeds exist because seed companies pour billions of dollars into research and development. They strive to come up with higher yielding products that help farmers fight pests and weeds. Their efforts empower farmers as we grow more food and contribute to environmental sustainability.

In the United States, it can take 10 years and a $100 million investment to develop a single seed trait cleared for full seed production. Intellectual property patent rights give seed companies the security and incentive to invest these millions. We can’t recycle seeds from the plants we’ve already grown. Biotech seeds may be self-regenerating products, but they’re also protected by patent.

Just as it’s against the law to pirate DVDs, computer software, and digital-music files, it’s against the law to pirate patented seeds. This principle is so broadly accepted that dozens of organizations have called on the Supreme Court to protect the integrity of patented seeds, including farm and technology groups as well as a coalition of top universities.

At the oral arguments last week, Chief Justice John Roberts made the point plainly: "Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?"

Justices of differing political persuasions appeared to agree with this sentiment: Mr. Bowman’s lawyer, reported the New York Times, received a "hostile reception."

Experts say that it can be a mistake to read too much into oral arguments. Yet I’m hopeful that justices will issue a ruling that preserves a system of scientific and agricultural innovation--and supports the millions of "little guy" farmers whose livelihoods depends on planting the best seeds.

Mark Jackson grows soybeans and corn on a family farm in SE Iowa. He has traveled extensively across the U.S. and around the world to learn more about soybean production. Mark is a volunteer member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farm Network (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

Ever since the fall of Communism, Poland has tried to move into the modern world by embracing democracy, freedom, and market liberalization. And we’ve done a pretty good job of it. Many observers say that we have one of the healthiest economies in Europe.

Last month, however, I believe we took a significant step backward. Our government banned an important farm technology for purely political reasons and without any scientific justification.

This disastrous decision will hurt Polish farmers and consumers right away. It also sets a terrible precedent for the future. We must overturn it immediately.

Like most of Europe, Poland has refused to participate fully in the biotech revolution that has transformed agricultural production around the world. Yet last year we were at least able to grow two kinds of genetically modified crops: a type of corn that fights insect pests and a potato that produces an abundance of starch.

Now they’re outlawed, meaning that Polish farmers cannot use the innovations that millions of farmers elsewhere take for granted, from advanced nations such as the United States and Canada to developing countries like Brazil and the Philippines.

My family owns a farm just north of Warsaw. On about 50 hectares, we grow a range of crops, including corn. We haven’t used the biotech corn that was previously available in Poland only because the pest that it guards against--the European corn borer--is not a threat in our region. In other parts of Poland, however, these bugs can ruin entire fields, wiping out a whole season’s production in just a few days.

My day job as a researcher for Poland’s Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization (IHAR) has given me plenty of hands-on experience with GM corn. I’ve studied it closely, looking at GM corn’s economic and environmental effects. I’m convinced that it is a safe and beneficial option for farmers and consumers in Poland--and everywhere else, for that matter.

GM crops are better than conventional strains for a long list of reasons. They allow us to grow more food on less land. They let us reduce our reliance on herbicides and pesticides. And best of all, they are perfectly safe: Despite the fearful rhetoric of political activists, they pose no health risk. Farmers have planted and harvested more than 3 billion acres of GM crops. People have eaten trillions of servings of food with GM ingredients. No one anywhere has ever suffered for it.

The bottom line is that food derived from biotechnology is a safe and healthy option that carries economic and environmental benefits.

That’s why governments around the world have accepted GM crops. Respected organizations from the American Medical Association in the United States to the Royal Society of Medicine in Britain have endorsed the widespread use of biotechnology as an agricultural tool.

As the evidence for the advantages of GM crops mounts, skeptics are turning into converts. Last month at the Oxford Farming Conference in Britain, former Greenpeace activist Mark Lynas apologized for his earlier opposition to biotechnology and urged governments and farmers to adopt 21st-century practices for the sake of the environment.

So by banning a couple of previously approved GM crops, Poland is moving in exactly the wrong direction. Our government has turned back the clock on food production.

Worst of all, our public officials know that GM crops are safe for human consumption. If they truly believed otherwise, they would forbid the purchase of GM food from other countries. Yet each year we import more than 2 million tons of GM soybeans for food and feed, as well as corn, cotton, and other crops.

The message is irrational and incomprehensible. It says that GM crops are acceptable for everyone, including Polish consumers--but that Polish farmers under no circumstances may use a proven technology that has led to a boom in production everywhere it has been tried.

Poland must continue to push forward into a bright future of hope and opportunity, not backward into a new Dark Age that views innovation and technology with terror. It must not leave its farmers behind.

Roman Warzecha grows maize, sweet corn, rape and cherries on a family farm in the Mazowia region of Poland. Mr. Warzecha leads maize and triticale research at Poland’s Institute of Plant Breeding and Acclimatization (IHAR) and is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

The pundits are still working through the details of Tuesday’s State of the Union speech, in which President Obama called for raising the minimum wage, fighting climate change, and fixing health-care costs.

If nothing else, the address will give Democrats, Republicans, and independents plenty to talk about.

As a farmer, however, I am really interested in two parts of the speech right now: We need more trade and better infrastructure.

They’re closely linked--and they’re essential to economic growth.

Just a few hours before the speech, North Korea tested a nuclear device. The President didn’t say much about it on Tuesday night, but he sounded an important theme: "Even as we protect our people, we should remember that today’s world presents not only dangers, but opportunities."

One of the best opportunities, he rightly said, is free trade.

The same Korean peninsula that poses a provocative threat is home to one of America’s chief trading partners. South Korea is a rising nation of 50 million consumers--and a great place for Americans to sell goods and services.

We’re doing it more than ever before, thanks to a new free-trade agreement. President Bush initiated it and President Obama and Congress completed it a little more than a year ago, fulfilling a promise the President made in an earlier State of the Union address. The pact is now expanding export markets and helping create tens of thousands of jobs in the United States.

And we can do even better in the region and beyond. President Obama touted the Trans-Pacific Partnership. This was no surprise because he has made a habit of talking up the TPP, which aims to lower trade barriers around the Pacific Rim.

Yet the President didn’t merely reprise an old theme. He also proposed an ambitious new idea: "Tonight," he said, "I am announcing that we will launch talks on a comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the European Union, because trade that is free and fair across the Atlantic supports millions of good-paying American jobs."

Trade between the United States and Europe is currently worth about $900 billion annually. Some experts believe that lowering tariffs on goods and services could boost this figure by 50 percent. For American farmers, whose sales to Europe totaled $12 billion last year, there is also the tantalizing possibility that a strong agreement on agriculture could encourage Europeans to become more accepting of GM crops, which are harvested around the world but still resisted in Europe due to anti-scientific prejudice.

These are big and worthy goals. If President Obama achieves just one of them in his second term--either TPP or a free-trade agreement with the EU--he will leave behind an impressive legacy on trade. If he achieves both, he may go down in history as one of America’s great trading presidents.

Congress should do what it can to help out. It can start by approving Trade Promotion Authority. Even though the President didn’t ask for TPA in his speech, he’ll need this legislative tool, which limits Congress to give a final up-or-down vote to any trade pact that the administration negotiates.

Even the best trade deals won’t be maximized if the United States lacks a world-class infrastructure. President Obama spoke of America’s "deteriorating roads and bridges." He also mentioned the need for "modern ports to move our goods." These are indispensible: About 75 percent of American exports travel through U.S. ports.

The President didn’t discuss inland waterways, but they’re essential too. The American Society of Civil Engineers claims that their poor quality cost businesses $33 billion in 2010, and that this price will soar to $49 billion by 2020.

The locks that are supposed to assist river traffic are woefully inadequate: The average age of federal locks is 60 years. They’re practically senior citizens. In seven years, says The Economist, more than 80 percent of these locks will be "functionally obsolete."

Businesses – including agriculture - rely on efficient transportation. As a farmer, about one-third of our corn goes to customers in foreign lands, along with so much of what we grow. On my farm, one out of every three rows of corn that I plant is sold and shipped somewhere else. We count on our rivers and ports to help make these sales.

Trade and infrastructure are inseparable--and we need them both if we plan to strengthen the State of our Union.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He serves as Vice-Chairman and volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

A decade ago, the U.S. beef industry was going global like never before. Production was rising, demand was growing, and everyone just wanted to buy more cattle. The excitement was contagious.

Then the growth markets crashed to a halt.

The first U.S. case of mad cow disease was diagnosed in Washington State and the global marketplace for US beef immediately changed. We still haven’t recovered from it--though now, at long last, it looks like we’ll have a chance to get those markets back.

Outgoing U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack have announced a deal that could supercharge beef exports to Japan this year. Under the agreement, beginning February 1, 2013 Japan will accept U.S. beef from cattle less than 30 months old, up from the previous limit of 20 months. The only exception involves ground beef, which will continue under the old restrictions.

Our trade diplomats deserve thanks for their efforts. Japan’s decision is long overdue, but it wouldn’t have been possible at all without a big push from Washington.

The beef industry, for its part, has learned important lessons about responding to a crisis--lessons that may help it later on, as new challenges emerge.

In 2003, Japan was the world’s biggest buyer of U.S. beef, importing nearly a billion pounds of it annually. This was no surprise: American beef is the gold standard. Nobody raises it as well as we do.

In December of that year, however, a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, better known as BSE or mad-cow disease, struck our herds. It’s a rare and poorly understood affliction, but science tells us that people who ate BSE-tainted meat can die from a brain disorder.

For three years, Japan banned all U.S. beef imports. When sales started again, they took place under such severe restrictions that volume remained low. Meanwhile, ranchers in other countries, especially Australia, took over what had been our dominant position in the Japanese market.

Sales have improved recently, to nearly 800 million pounds of U.S. beef in the last two years combined. The new rules could spur sales of more than 500 million pounds in 2013 alone, worth $1.5 billion.

That’s an additional $1.5 billion pumped into the American economy, like a miniature stimulus program--except that it won’t cost taxpayers a penny.

Now we must ask ourselves why the recovery took so long.

The Japanese government definitely overreacted. Although mad-cow disease is a serious concern, Japan’s severe response was far out of proportion to the size of the problem.

For years, this was essentially what we said to the Japanese. It had the virtue of being true, but it was also a mistake on our part.

We should have recognized more quickly that a different message would have served our interests more effectively. Mad-cow disease had shaken Japan’s confidence in U.S. beef. To reassure their government and consumers, we should have taken additional concrete and transparent steps right away.

Eventually, we took them. We adopted new safeguards that have improved our ability to detect threats, prevent outbreaks, and respond to challenges in a timely way.

Going forward, we’ll do a much better job of stopping interruptions in our supply chain.

I wish mad-cow disease never had reared its ugly head. But it may be possible to say there’s a silver lining to what happened: The U.S. beef industry is even better today than it was a decade ago.

And we’re well positioned to grow. The successful completion of the free-trade agreement with South Korea in 2011 has opened new export opportunities there. Now we’re ready to return with real force to Japan, which almost certainly will become the top export destination for U.S. beef. (Right now, it’s Mexico.)

Even greater trade possibilities lie ahead. Much of Asia looks to Japan for leadership, especially on regulatory issues. Japan’s acceptance of U.S. beef will lead to an immediate sales spike in Japan, and it could encourage other neighboring countries to admit more of what we export.

China is the one we really want. Right now, it doesn’t import any U.S. beef directly. With a population of 1 billion people--and most notably an emerging middle class--it represents an incredible untapped market.

U.S. trade representative Ron Kirk confirmed last week that he’s leaving Washington for the private sector. He deserves praise for the Obama administration’s major achievement on trade: final approval of free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea that had been negotiated by President Bush and his trade representatives but languished in Washington for years.

These three deals are already helping the U.S. economy by making it easier for Americans to sell goods and services abroad.

Complacency now becomes a danger. Exports have fueled America’s sluggish economy for several years, but they’ve slowed down in recent months. As President Obama begins his second term, he must first find a new trade diplomat and then push for new trade pacts.

An excellent opportunity awaits across the Atlantic Ocean: The White House should actively pursue a U.S.-European Union free-trade agreement, which would benefit Americans directly but also improve conditions around the globe.

Three years ago, President Obama announced his National Export Initiative, promising that U.S. exports would double in five years. Initial signs suggested that he might make good on this pledge, as exports expanded by about 11 percent in 2010. Yet they’ve dropped ever since, to less than 7 percent in 2011 and, according to the latest figures, less than 4 percent in 2012.

At this rate, we’ll fall far short of the administration’s goal.

The president will blame the lousy world economy, and he’ll have a point. Yet there’s no reason to admit defeat--and in a poor climate, developing an aggressive trade agenda that helps Americans export goods and services becomes even more urgent.

Together, the United States and the EU are responsible for almost half of the world’s GDP. We already trade a lot: Trans-Atlantic trade is worth more than $900 billion annually. Yet we can do even better. The European Commission believes that an ambitious agreement could boost trade by 50 percent.

Generating that much economic activity would be like passing a stimulus program. And it wouldn’t cost our debt-ridden government a penny. Simply by lowering tariffs on both continents, new trade would generate business, creating opportunities for entrepreneurs and jobs for workers.

The alternative is to do nothing--and doing nothing isn’t free. It could prove costly. Last year, U.S. exports to the EU actually declined by about 1 percent. Without positive action, we may see more stagnation rather than growth.

Agriculture often poses problems in large trade deals, and it would be no different with the EU. Yet a comprehensive agreement could do enormous good, not just for farmers in the United States, who would sell more of what they grow, but for people in the developing world.

One of the issues that will need to be covered is the acceptance of biotechnology as an acceptable tool of agriculture production. I believe a good trade agreement would require the EU to accept more food with GM ingredients--a common phenomenon throughout the Western hemisphere, but distrusted in Europe due to anti-scientific prejudice.

The good news is that most thinking Europeans know that biotechnology makes sense. European regulators have declared it safe. A growing number of scientists speak out on its behalf. A month ago, British environmental activist Mark Lynas announced his support for GM crops.

Robust trade talks could provide the spark for Europe to lower its resistance. This would benefit people everywhere, in ways that the dollars and cents of trade figures fail to capture.

Modern food-production methods, including biotechnology, allow eachU.S. farmer to feed 147 people. This amazing efficiency lets more non-farmers devote their energy and creativity to other projects--everything from pioneering vaccines to inventing the next cool mobile-phone app—instead of spending their day providing food for their own family.

Europeans should want this benefit for themselves, and they should hope it spreads into Africa, which looks to Europe for economic and political leadership. Global food and nutritional security depends on Africa to realize its full potential as a breadbasket, and increased acceptance of GM crops is one of the tools that should be available.

None of this will happen without political leadership.

President Obama’s immediate task is to appoint a new trade representative--a figure who will command respect in foreign capitals. Former Republican Senator Richard Lugar, who has a good relationship with the president, might be an inspired choice.

Then comes the hard part, but also the most important part: Thinking big on trade.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org). Follow us: @TruthAboutTrade on Twitter | Truth About Trade & Technology on Facebook.

The best thing to happen for Canadian food last year took place in California.

Voters there rejected Proposition 37, a badly flawed ballot proposal that would have required special labels for food that may contain genetically modified ingredients.

For years, anti-biotech activists here in Canada have talked about pursuing a similar scheme. They’ve blogged about it on their websites and have campaigned against modern agricultural methods. They haven’t made much headway, in part because so few people buy into their non-science alarmist arguments.

The results of Prop 37 should encourage these protestors to give up: Labeling GMO’s wouldn’t make food any safer, in California, Canada, or anywhere.

But extremists can be immune to facts-- including the fact that over 1 billion meals with GMO technology have been eaten around the world, with not a single reported case of negative human health effects.

Mandatory labeling would only serve to increase the cost of food production. In the United States, the pro-label radicals are already pushing a new initiative in the state of Washington, neighboring British Columbia.

Let’s hope this bad idea doesn’t slip across the border and force us to endure our own political fight.

Agriculture is one of the great engines of the Canadian economy--and much of our success in recent years comes from advances in technology that allow us to grow more food on less land.

On our farm in Saskatchewan, we’ve grown GM canola for almost 10 years. There are obvious advantages for us on the farm, but this technology benefits all Canadians. Boosting our productivity keeps food prices down and helps protect the environment.

Anti-biotech activists seek to turn back the clock on this progress. They fail to see the science behind the benefits. They want warning labels to demonize ordinary products, reduce consumer confidence, and hurt an entire industry, even as food and health organizations around the world have endorsed the adoption of GM crops.

For me, the issue is personal. I have two young daughters, and we feed them what we grow on the farm. That includes food with GM ingredients. As a parent, I’m very comfortable feeding my children food produced from GM crops. But I’m inundated with anti-biotech propaganda while shopping at the grocery store. I’m irritated by irrational labeling… like "GM Free" stickers on products that don’t even have a GM counterpart. Thanks for the "warning!" Parents have enough to worry about these days when feeding our families, we don’t need more unsubstantiated fear tactics.

In 2002 the Hudson Institute found that organic and "natural" food products were eight times more likely to be recalled or suffer other food safety problems, compared to their conventional counterparts. Those who are concerned about food safety should turn to science. Most of us with children in the public school system are faced with the issue of food allergies. If all the lobbying dollars being thrown at anti-biotech campaigns were diverted to science, perhaps we could remove the protein that causes peanuts to be allergens, or address the root of lactose intolerance.

The enemies of biotechnology love to talk about the publics "right to know." I agree wholeheartedly: The public has a right to know that biotechnology is an essential part of our food security in the 21st-century. Biotechnology warning labels shouldn’t be a part of it, especially here in Canada. Warning labels should be reserved for allergens and other real food safety concerns.

Thankfully, the tide of public opinion is turning in Canada. Citizens are starting to realize the value of this new technology – whether it’s lower food costs, improved soil conservation or reduced use of scarce resources.

The outlook for GM technology continues to be bright. Future applications promise to use fertilizer more efficiently, help grow crops under drought conditions or improve the nutritional profile of crops. Biotechnology in the future means growing more with less. It also means creating healthier food. This is the legacy that I want to leave to my children.

Cherilyn and her husband own a diversified grain farm in Mossback Saskatchewan, Canada. In addition to farming, Cherilyn is active in many agricultural policy initiatives to improve the sustainability of agriculture and advocate for modern agricultural practices. Cherilyn is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

"There is nothing that an intellectual less likes to change than his mind, or a politician his policy," says the British writer Theodore Dalrymple.

Mark Lynas is both an intellectual and a political activist—hence his recent decision to change his mind is so notable. Earlier this month, he announced his conversion from foe to enthusiastic supporter of genetically modified crops.

I was in the room when Lynas revealed his change of heart whilst delivering the Frank Parkinson Lecture at this year’s Oxford Farming Conference. His talk deserves a wide audience here in the UK, where we are not allowed to grow the modern crops that farmers in the Americas and elsewhere take for granted.

For years, Lynas has been one of the world’s leading environmental campaigners. He’s best known for his work on climate change. One of his books, "Six Degrees," won Britain’s most prestigious award for science writing. It was also turned into a documentary for National Geographic, narrated by the actor Alec Baldwin and watched by millions.

When he wasn’t talking about climate, Lynas often could be found protesting GM crops. He was not merely an extremist who wrote newspaper articles against 21st-century agriculture but also a militant who set about damaging GM crop trials.

This destructive activity, says Lynas now, "is analogous to burning books in a library before anyone has been able to read them."

Lynas calls the effort to spread malicious propaganda against GM crops "the most successful campaign I have ever been involved with."

Now he regrets it.

"I want to start with some apologies," he said at the beginning of his remarks. "I apologize for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid-1990s, and that I thereby assisted in demonizing an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment."

Instead of yanking GM crops from the soil, says Lynas, true environmentalists should seek to plant more of them.

"The GM debate is over," he said. "We no longer need to discuss whether or not it is safe. Over a decade and a half with 3 trillion GM meals eaten, there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food."

He went on to explain why GM crops are good for the environment: They allow us to produce more food on limited land, shrink our carbon footprint, and reduce our reliance on chemical sprays.

In one respect, Lynas said nothing new. As a farmer who devotes 15 percent of my land area to environmental stewardship, creating habitats for birds, mammals and pollinators, I too believe that we could enhance biodiversity and reduce our environmental footprint if we grew biotech crops.

Yet Lynas is different. We know from history that convert’s opinion can wield much greater influence—so a one-time environmental activist could become one of the greatest advocates for modern farming methods.

Lynas said in his speech that he first began to have doubts about his opposition to GM crops by reading the online comments to his newspaper columns.

Readers encouraged him to look more closely at the science of biotechnology. "I discovered that one by one, my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths," he said.

If the discussion over GM crops were approached by the public, intellectuals and policy-makers with the honesty and open-mindedness of Lynas, I believe they would soon realize that its role is pivotal to feeding our growing population in a sustainable and environmentally sensitive way.

Ian Pigott runs a diversified farming business in Harpenden, UK. Located just 20 miles from the centre of London, he grows wheat, oilseed, rape and oats in rotation. The farm is a LEAF (linking environment and farming) demonstration farm. Ian is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org)

If you enjoy the taste and healthy benefits of salmon, and appreciate that it is available to you, you may want to share your thoughts with the federal government as soon as possible.

Why? Because the Food and Drug Administration just declared that genetically modified salmon "is as safe as food from conventional Atlantic salmon," and they are looking for your feedback.

As soon as next year, salmon could become more abundant and less expensive, meaning that salmon lovers will enjoy this heart-healthy food more easily and often.

Before that can happen, however, GM salmon must overcome the harsh opposition of radical anti-biotech groups. This should not have to be a concern. Unfortunately, it is, and failure would deliver a devastating blow not just to a safe product, but also to the very idea of improving our food security with biotechnology.

On December 21, the FDA released an extensive report on GM salmon and opened a 60-day comment period for citizens and organizations to register their opinions. Think of it as the final jumps in a long regulatory salmon run. As this phase proceeds, officials should hear an important message: Consumers know GM salmon is safe and look forward to eating it.

Developed by a Massachusetts company, GM salmon grows to market size in half the time. It achieves this feat by blending the genes of Atlantic salmon with a growth gene from a Chinook salmon and an anti-freeze gene from an ocean pout.

In every other respect, this is an ordinary salmon: It tastes the same and it’s just as healthy. Because the introduction of fishery-raised GM salmon will remove pressure from wild stock, it’s even good for the environment. We’ll have more salmon on our grills as well as in our seas and streams.

I have a special interest in wild salmon because I own a fishing lodge in Alaska. We depend on salmon to thrive in their natural habitat.

Fortunately, GM salmon pose no threat. For starters, they’re sterile and can’t mate. They’re also confined to indoor containers. One of the major test facilities was built in the mountains of Panama, on the theory that even in the unlikely event of a catastrophe; the cold-dependent GM salmon would perish in the regions warm and muddy waters. Similar safeguards would accompany any commercial production.

Because so much care has gone into their advent, GM salmon are on the verge of becoming the first genetically improved animals approved for food consumption.

It’s about time. The regulatory-approval process started long ago. The first GM salmon was created in 1989, during the first Bush administration. The FDA got involved 17 years ago, during the Clinton administration. As Jon Entine recently pointed out in a detailed investigation for Slate, the online magazine, the Obama administration was ready to issue its approval last year but dragged its feet for political rather than scientific reasons: It wanted to avoid a pre-election controversy.

The good news is that the FDA is finally letting science trump politics. As Entine points out, however, there is much more at stake than the fate of a single food product: "North America has become a dead zone" for investment in genetically enhanced animals, due to the strangling effects of political red tape.

James Murray of the University of California at Davis recently developed a goat that produces milk with a special protein that prevents diarrhea—an advance that could save lives in the developing world, especially among children. Yet as Entine reports, Murray has moved his research to Brazil. "When you don’t have a regulatory pathway forward and the government doesn’t support research in this area, what company will invest in this field?" he asked. "None."

Traditionally, the United States has led the world in biotechnology regulatory approval. If GM salmon suffers new setbacks, however, we’ll fall further behind—at a time when China is investing hundreds of millions of dollars into transgenic animals.

During the comment period, Americans should say they believe in biotechnology and want more of it.

Since the national elections, Washington has focused almost exclusively on debt and taxes. Yet the fiscal cliff isn’t our only challenge: We’re also confronted by a kind of regulatory waterfall, in which the rushing rapids of politics smash great ideas and proven concepts.

GM salmon may survive, despite the long and unnecessary delays. The next innovation may not be so lucky.

Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the CaliforniaSan JoaquinValley. Ted and his sons own Rainbow King Lodge on Lake Iliamna, Alaska. He volunteers as a board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org)

It may be the greatest thing since sliced bread. Heck, it may be even better than sliced bread.

Several weeks ago, researchers announced that they had tapped into key parts of the wheat genome. With this success, we could be on the path to doubling wheat production and increasing food security for people around the world.

That’s an awful lot of sliced bread.

It also marks one of several important milestones in the history of wheat, a plant that currently accounts for around 20 percent of all calories consumed by humans.

About 8,000 years ago, farmers domesticated this staple crop. This agricultural innovation may have led to human society’s transition from hunting and gathering to settled production and the rise of civilization.

Almost 2,000 years ago, the Gospel of Matthew gave us one of our best-known idioms, about separating the wheat from the chaff.

And today, scientists are exposing the secrets of wheat’s genetic makeup.

The formal announcement came in Nature, the academic journal. Scientists from the United Kingdom led the effort, joined by collaborators in Germany and the United States. One member of the team hails from my home state: Dr. Shahryar F. Kianian, a geneticist at North Dakota State University.

Wheat may look like a simple plant, but its biology is astonishingly complex. Wheat is comprised of three different grasses; it has an enormous genome of about 95,000 genes, which is roughly five times larger than the human genome.

So decoding wheat’s genome is a long and laborious task. In Science, the researchers described their approach, called "shotgun sequencing." They break the genome into pieces and look for patterns, allowing them to learn more at a faster pace.

It’s like separating wheat and chaff at the genetic level.

Their paper was written for an audience of peers, scientists with advanced degrees. Yet their conclusion points to a practical application: "Analysis of complex polygenic traits such as yield and nutrient use efficiency will also be accelerated, contributing to sustainable increases in wheat crop production."

In ordinary English, that means we’ll soon grow both more and better wheat.

This advance hardly could have come at a more fitting time. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that global farmers grew 681 million tons of wheat in 2011. Only corn and rice had bigger harvests.

Amid this modern bounty, droughts have caused the price of wheat to bounce up and down, creating economic and political instability. Many experts trace the recent tumult in the Middle East—including the ongoing civil war in Syria—to a sudden spike in the cost of wheat and other foods.

Wheat is a hardy plant that can grow in semi-arid environments. This helpful trait accounts for much of its usefulness and popularity. Ironically, the plant’s toughness also puts it on the front lines of climate change. When droughts strike, wheat often feels the pressure first.

By taking advantage of wheat’s genome, we can apply the same tools of biotechnology that have launched a global revolution in agriculture. In the United States and many other parts of the world, the vast majority of corn and soybeans is genetically enhanced to fight weeds and pests.

With wheat, biotechnology can help us take a plant that already makes efficient use of moisture and build increased drought resistance right into its fundamental makeup. This will make wheat even more durable during dry spells.

This is an essential development, if we hope to keep up with global population growth and also make sure that people enjoy access to affordable food. Geneticist Michael Bevan of the John Innes Center in the United Kingdom put the matter bluntly in the Wall Street Journal: "We need to double wheat yields."

Decoding wheat’s genome is an indispensible step on the way to meeting this vital goal.

At some point, perhaps one of these brainy scientists will do us all a favor and insert a special trait into the next generation of wheat plants: One that bakes the bread and slices the loaves at the same time.

Terry Wanzek is a wheat, corn and soybean farmer in North Dakota. He serves as a ND State Senator and volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

So by now you’re probably aware that the world didn’t end last week, as some readers of the Mayan calendar had prophesied. You may also know that the whole fuss about Apocalypse 2012 was based on a misinterpretation of a Mayan inscription.

Here at Truth about Trade & Technology, our board and Global Farmer Network members spent the year interpreting the news and politics of food—and forecasting a brighter future, as long as it’s based on free trade and doing what we can to ensure that all farmers have access to the technology they need to flourish.

From the start, we tracked the U.S. presidential campaign. In January, right after the Iowa caucuses, Tim Burrackencouraged the GOP to embrace free trade: "When Obama squares off against a Republican—whether it’s [Mitt] Romney, [Rick] Santorum, or someone else—he’ll be able to claim, accurately, that he has increased export opportunities for American farmers and manufacturers."

In March, John Reifstecktold the candidates to look at export growth as an employment program: "Exports generate jobs—and one of the most important jobs of the president is to generate exports." Dean Kleckner and other writers chimed in, urging Congress to approve Trade Promotion Authority and for the White House to make the Trans-Pacific Partnership a top priority. As summer turned to fall, Bill Horan advised both Obama and Romney to accept a fundamental truth: "Global prosperity depends on an America committed to free-trade leadership."

When the votes were counted and President Obama was re-elected, John Rigolizzo, Jr.proposed ways to push America’s trade agenda forward, suggesting the appointment of Romney as a special trade ambassador to Latin America. Kleckner proposed Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar as U.S. Trade Representative in Obama’s second term.

The race for the White House dominated our election coverage, but we also responded to the presidential victory of Enrique Peña in Mexico. "He should push for greater acceptance of genetically-modified crops," wrote Francisco Gurría Treviño, a member of TATT’s Global Farmer Network, in August.

In June, we marked the bicentennial of the War of 1812. Reg Clause helped us look back at a point of U.S. history that offered a bad trade policy lesson for all of us: "Two-hundred years ago this week, America’s worst trade war erupted into America’s worst shooting war."

For American farmers, this year’s most important election may have taken place in California, where voters considered Proposition 37, a badly flawed ballot initiative to put warning labels on some foods that may contain genetically modified ingredients. "Its wording is full of political agendas, bizarre contradictions, and hidden costs that will drive up your grocery-store bill," warned Ted Sheely in October. Even members of our Global Farmer Network felt compelled to comment. "If it passes," wrote Gilbert Arap Borof Kenya, "Proposition 37 will hurt global efforts to improve food production through modern technology."

Prop 37 suffered a bad defeat. "California voters sent a loud-and-clear message to special interests and anti-biotech agitators last week: Keep your hands off our food," wrote Sheely in the aftermath. Yet he also cautioned his readers: "Our victory last week is a case study in success, but almost 4.3 million Californians voted against us. We must continue to tell our compelling story." Within a few weeks, anti-GM activists were talking about new political campaigns in Oregon and Washington.

Whether you farm in India or North Dakota, many farmers suffered through some of the most volatile weather years on record. "How dry is it?" asked Terry Wanzek in August. "It’s so dry farmers need drought-resistant crops. ... We need more crop per drop." Mr. V. Ravichandranadded from India,"I am convinced modern technology holds out the promise of seeds that can endure the worst weather can throw at us."

One of TATT’s most important roles is to serve as a truth squad—and set the record straight when prominent media figures and publications spread disinformation about farm technology. In January, Horan responded to an article about GM food in The Atlantic: "This is a case study in how misinformation is born—and how it can spread, like a virus," he wrote.

In April, Carol Keiser-Long bemoaned the smear campaign against a safe beef product that became known as "pink slime": "Hundreds of Americans have lost their jobs and consumers are on the verge of losing an ingredient that is an excellent example of sustainable agriculture–all because we’ve let sensationalism trump science." In July, as activists tried to generate another phony controversy over something called "Agent Orange Corn," Horan warned that "the enemies of agricultural progress have adopted a plan to try to manipulate our emotions by raising the specter of a controversial chemical that is a part of our past and will have no place in our future."

This spring, Tim Burrack grew so concerned about propaganda that masqueraded as fact that he invited Oprah Winfrey to his farm. "Visit the land that I’ve worked since I was a boy," he wrote in an open letter. "See this place so that you’ll never again let bad articles on agriculture tarnish the pages of your magazine or the pixels on your website." In October, Burrack then aimed at Dr. Oz, who "let his program become a soapbox for wild accusations, unsubstantiated claims, and hysterical advice. ... Upon pulling back the curtain, we discover that Dr. Oz is no wizard. He’s a charlatan."

As some continue to push back against the technology, there are clear success stories for us to learn from. Ken Kamiya, a TATT Global Farmer Network member from Hawaii shared how "cutting-edge agriculture defeated disease and saved Hawaiian papayas…even as professional protestors peddle scientific ignorance to frighten the public about this essential food source."

But our work is not done. TATT Global Farmer Network member Motlatsi Musi, talked about farming around landmines, literally, as South African farmers like himself worked hard to grow maize and other vegetables during the days of apartheid. "Yet farmers in today’s Africa continue to face landmines of the metaphorical variety: As we try to obtain access to the latest agricultural technology, we see hazardous obstacles everywhere. They must be removed."

Amid all the columns and controversies, TATT marked an important transition, as longtime chairman Dean Kleckner retired. "We all owe him a tremendous debt for having devoted his life to American farming," wrote Horan, who succeeded him.

The good news is that Dean plans to continue contribution columns—as do we all, into 2013 and beyond.

So does is makes sense to measure apple exports by counting oranges? Of course not. And yet this is precisely how the United States measures and is reporting its progress in trade policy.

That’s because we compute the value of our trade in dollars, when the most important measurement should be volume; the actual amount of products we sell to others.

Fixing our calculations will serve our long-term interests in trade, and possibly even help us avoid the fiscal cliffs in our future.

The United States hasn’t enjoyed very many economic success stories recently. Joblessness remains high, growth is stagnant, and now our President and Congress are engaged in a high-stakes game of political chicken over taxes and spending.

Amid all the gloom, farm exports have been a bright spot. The Department of Agriculture recently predicted that they would reach $145 billion this year, which is more than $9 billion above last year’s total. Even more impressive is the fact that it’s an all-time record.

So that’s good news. Except that even here, looks can be deceiving. In October, U.S. exports plummeted, not just in agriculture but across every major category of trade. They declined by 3.6 percent in the largest month-to-month drop since January 2009.

That month was significant because it marked the beginning of President Obama’s administration. A year later, as he and the rest of us struggled through America’s ongoing slump, he made an important promise in his State of the Union address: In five years, he said, U.S. exports would double.

This pledge involved an interesting measurement "trick": For a baseline, he chose a year in which exports had hit rock bottom, following the global economic downturn. The regular turnings of the business cycle all but guaranteed a rebound. For a couple of years, it looked like President Obama might make good on his export pledge. A goal that all of us want him to achieve.

This year, however, trade leveled off. We’ll be lucky if it comes anywhere close to doubling by 2015.

To complicate matters, we’re measuring in dollars rather than by volume. Dollars are a good way to evaluate exports, but not the best way. Currency valuations can mask the true story. For a better sense of our export health, we have to examine export volume.

And here, the data are more troubling. The total volume of farm exports will be about 108 million metric tons this year. This is well below recent levels. The drought explains some of this but not all of it. Even with corn exports falling by almost half, we’re still shipping out fewer major commodities. We certainly aren’t on track to double anything.

One of the best ways to improve export volume is through policy: rules at home that allow farmers and businesses to thrive, and trade agreements with partners that allow goods and services to move free from artificial barriers. Success requires sensible regulations that protect consumers rather than onerous ones that hobble economic activity, plus an aggressive agenda of trade diplomacy.

These are long-term strategies. Adopting them now won’t save us from the oncoming fiscal cliff—it’s too late for that—but it will help our economy in the future.

A central dispute between the White House and Congress in their fiscal-cliff standoff involves spending. President Obama would like a new round of stimulus spending, even though it would add to the federal debt.

Properly understood, exports can serve the same purpose—but without the debt. Rather than creating programs and sending the bill to taxpayers, officials should push for new trade agreements that allow Americans to export goods and services abroad. They approved deals last year with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea, but only after letting them languish for years. So far, the Obama administration has talked about expanding trade opportunities but it has not negotiated a single trade pact on its own.

More trade will create jobs and economic growth at no cost to the public treasury—especially if we strive to boost not just our sales value but also our sales volume.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Anti-biotech activists are like zombies in a horror movie: No matter how many times you defeat them, they keep snapping back to life, determined to wreak brand-new havoc.

So a month after suffering a bad loss in California on Election Day, they’re shifting their misconceived movement to Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and elsewhere. The next engagement is already well underway in the state of Washington, where the frightening extremism of what they really hope to achieve is also on full display.

Their outrageous goal is nothing less than a complete ban of crops enhanced by biotechnology--and they must be stopped.

Last month, 53 percent of Californians said "No!" on Proposition 37, a fatally flawed ballot initiative that would have mandated warning labels for safe food products that may contain ingredients derived from genetically modified crops.

Prop 37 was a bad idea from the start. It would have driven up grocery-store bills without aiding consumers at all. Farmers, doctors, scientists, and just about every daily newspaper editorial page in the state opposed it. In the end, so did most voters.

Yet anti-biotech activists are preparing to strike again. In Washington, they’re gathering signatures now for a ballot initiative modeled on Prop 37. They even have an official name for it: Initiative 522, or I-522. And they’ve raised almost $200,000 in its behalf, according to Linda Thomas of KIRO

Organizers are well on their way to meeting a goal of collecting 320,000 signatures by December 31. They believe this will give them more than enough to guarantee the 242,000 valid names they will need for certification by the secretary of state. If that happens, their proposal will move to the state legislature. As soon as January, lawmakers could approve the measure or allow I-522 to go on the ballot in November 2013.

Odds are the legislature will defer to voters. That’s what happened earlier this year with I-502, an effort to legalize and regulate marijuana. Supporters had gathered signatures, and lawmakers let it appear on the ballot. Last month, 55 percent of voters approved it.

It remains to be seen how I-502 will affect drug use, as selling or possessing pot remains illegal under federal law. But consider the irony: Shortly after Washington voters decided to relax drug laws, anti-GM activists are asking them to impose a crackdown on one of the safest and common technologies in agriculture.

Reasonable people can disagree on the decriminalization of pot. Yet the idea that voters would take a laissez-faire approach to marijuana and then almost immediately impose draconian restrictions on mainstream food ingredients is just plain bizarre.

The opponents of biotechnology try to present a reasonable face to the public, but their real agenda is radical--and it’s already on full view in the state of Washington.

On Election Day, as Californians were casting their ballots against Prop 37, voters in Washington’s San Juan County considered an even more dangerous measure: a total ban on the growing of GM crops.

San Juan County, home to less than 16,000 people, is tiny compared to California and its population of almost 37 million. So its drastic initiative didn’t generate much attention during the campaign season--and neither did the result, in which 61 percent of the county’s voters decided to outlaw the kinds of plants that farmers in much of the rest of the country take for granted.

This is the true mission of the anti-biotech movement: the utter elimination of genetically modified crops from the United States.

If the "Just Label It" crowd wanted to stop at labeling, its leaders would have condemned the vote in San Juan County. But they did no such thing. For people who love to spew out press releases and shout on blogs, their silence was curious--and also revealing.

The rest of us must speak out against both the effort to push new food-label laws and the even more harmful agenda that lies behind it. We know the truth about modern food and agriculture, and it’s our job once again to make sure voters hear about it as well.

Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the CaliforniaSan JoaquinValley. He volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade &Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

Farming in India has reached a very crucial phase. In a scenario of rising consumption needs and aspirations, and dwindling or varying natural resources, it has become imperative for India to innovate or access appropriate technologies that will enhance our agricultural productivity efficiently.

Since the Green Revolution in the 1960’s, researchers, government and the private sector have been working relentlessly to improve the efficiency and productivity of agriculture in our country, blending science with traditional knowledge so the farming system will be more responsive to the needs of its farmers.

Today, the progress we have made is in jeopardy. We are under attack from several anti-technology activists who are using false and unfounded allegations to question our desire to have access to better technologies and seeds. They have gone so far as to request that our Supreme Court place a ten-year ban on GM crop field trials in India; a radical and ignorant proposal that could devastate Indian agriculture at a time when farmers must grow more food just to keep up with a population that recently boomed past 1.2 billion people.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected this outrageous idea.

The worst may be yet to come, however: The Court appointed a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) to assess the benefits of GM plants, but the body lacks a single member who is an expert on the science of how modern technology can improve farm productivity.

So the "expert" committee lacks expertise.

Early next year, the Technical Expert Committee will issue a new and more detailed report. It will receive full consideration, even if it includes suggestions as harmful as the one our country just dodged.

Enough is enough. Why must India’s farmers always be held back? We should enjoy the right to grow the food our country desperately needs.

India must transform its attitude toward biotechnology and embrace the science that is helping farmers in the United States and other countries achieve record levels of food production.

Around the globe, farmers have harvested more than 3 billion acres of biotech crops. The food they produce has become a part of conventional diets. Both farmers and consumers benefit: Farmers grow more food on their land and consumers see their food bills kept in check.

Yet India’s government has failed to keep up with the times.

A decade ago, it permitted the commercial cultivation of GM cotton—and ever since, yields have soared, both on my 60-acre farm in Tamil Nadu and across the nation. The proof of performance can be seen in our fields, where cotton production went up by 154 percent. The evidence is right in front of our faces.

Instead of trying to repeat this success by allowing farmers to grow other varieties of biotech plants, however, the government has permitted political protestors to dictate agricultural policy. More than 6 million of us now grow GM cotton, but we’re still forbidden from growing the kinds of food crops that farmers in Argentina, Canada, the Philippines, and elsewhere take for granted.

Nearly three years ago, we were about to take a big step forward with the advent of GM brinjal, a culinary vegetable that people in other countries call eggplant. Scientists recommended it and farmers wanted it. But the government said no, simply because a few loud voices were able to shout down common sense.

As I write this, I am battling on my farm to salvage my rice crop. This year, I’ve had to contend with a drought, followed by a monsoon, and then a brand-new dry spell. Modern technology holds out the promise of seeds that can endure the worst that weather can throw at us--everything from low moisture to submersion in water. In addition to the challenges of climate, farmers also must beat their traditional foes: weeds, pests, and disease. I am convinced biotechnology can help with that too.

But only if we enjoy access to the best agricultural tools that science can deliver.

India is a poor country, and sometimes I’m forced to wonder if anti-GM activists want to keep us that way.

The choice is clear: We can remain poor, and always be reaching for the begging bowl, or we can work together to come up with 21st-century solutions to our most pressing problems.

Up to now, we have for the most part chosen foolishly. To reverse course, our Supreme Court must continue to treat the advice of its own Technical Expert Committee with the skepticism it so richly deserves.

The next step is to choose wisely. That means listening, at long last, to the people who appreciate the true potential of biotechnology: India’s own farmers.

Mr. V Ravichandran owns a 60 acre farm at Poongulam Village in Tamil Nadu, India where he grows rice, sugar cane, cotton and pulses (small grains). Mr. Ravichandran is a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org).

The Obama administration’s second-term shakeup will include a new top trade diplomat as the current U.S. Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, is eyeing the exit door.

There’s no official announcement yet, but Kirk’s departure is one of the worst-kept secrets in the capital. "He intends to leave Washington and head back to Dallas," where he once was mayor, reports the Washington Post.

As President Obama reboots a cabinet that will include a new Secretary of State and director of the CIA, he’ll want to make sure he settles on a trade ambassador who not only has his full confidence but also a high level of credibility with foreign leaders.

An excellent choice is available: Richard Lugar, the Republican senator from Indiana.

Under normal circumstances, Lugar wouldn’t even consider the job. Earlier this year, however, he lost his party’s primary election. Lugar had hoped to serve one more term in the Senate and then retire after a long career.

By tapping Lugar, President Obama would send a powerful signal to a divided country that’s sick of partisan gridlock. He pursued the same strategy in his first term with the appointment of former Republican congressman Ray LaHood as Secretary of Transportation. LaHood has indicated that he doesn’t plan to stick around for another four years. As with Kirk, there’s been no formal notice, but all signs point to a departure.

Lugar is a natural option. For one thing, the President and Lugar have a strong relationship, going back to their days in the Senate. They collaborated as members of the Foreign Relations Committee and traveled together to Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan.

In 2007, when Obama announced that he was running for president, he invoked Lugar’s name. "Politics don’t have to divide us," he said. "I’ve worked with Republican senator Dick Lugar." During one of his presidential debates with John McCain in 2008, Obama said that for foreign-policy advice, he sought Lugar’s counsel. President Obama even cut campaign commercials that showed images of the Hoosier. Lugar had not endorsed Obama, but neither did he ask for Obama to take down the ads.

In addition to showing bipartisanship and enjoying Obama’s trust, Lugar possess several other important qualities. Popular among his colleagues on both sides of the aisle, he would coast through Senate confirmation. He also possesses an outstanding record of free-trade votes. He has been a consistent supporter of free-trade agreements and presidential Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

Farmers would cheer the choice as Lugar has chaired the Senate’s agriculture committee and he knows how much farmers depend on exports.

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, ranks Lugar as one of the Senate’s most reliable friends of free trade. Over the last two decades, Lugar has cast 55 votes on issues involving trade barriers. According to Cato, he has voted to remove restraints to trade on 53 occasions--more than 96 percent of the time.

Senators don’t have bosses, except perhaps for voters, and Lugar would have to agree to take direction from the White House. The late Earl Butz, who was Secretary of Agriculture in the Nixon and Ford administrations, once told me how it works: "The president and I have a deal," he said. "When we don’t agree, we do things his way."

So Lugar would have to agree to do things Obama’s way. But perhaps he could also become the strong voice for trade that the Obama administration desperately needs, as it seeks to make good on a promise to double exports by 2015 and complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a potentially blockbuster trade pact whose success will require a skilled negotiator who knows his way around foreign capitals as well as the halls of Congress.

Serving as U.S. trade representative would be a worthy capstone to a distinguished career. Obama should seize this unique opportunity and invite Lugar to join his team, for the good of the country.

Back in the dark days of apartheid, many South African farmers like myself were forced to drive our tractors through fields full of landmines as we worked hard to grow maize and other vegetables.

That’s now a part of history, thank goodness. Yet farmers in today’s Africa continue to face landmines of the metaphorical variety: As we try to obtain access to the latest agricultural technology, we see hazardous obstacles everywhere. They must be removed.

If our continent is ever going to feed itself, we’re going to have to beat the odds--and adopt the same tools that are taken for granted in so much of the developed world. That means we must have access to seeds improved with biotechnology.

I’ve seen the benefits of GM crops firsthand. Just south of Johannesburg, I own several acres of land and rent more. For the last eight years, I’ve grown genetically modified corn and soybeans. They are outstanding crops. My yields have improved by more than one-third, meaning that the economics of farming never have been better. Agriculture doesn’t have to be a subsistence occupation. It can be a sustainable profession.

Economics are only a part of it. GM crops are more sustainable for the environment and human health as well. The biotech variety I planted protects maize from stalk boring insects, so I don’t have to apply nearly as much chemical spray as in the past. That’s a huge benefit for field laborers, especially children.

The enemies of biotechnology sometimes claim that GM food is harmful to eat. This is sheer nonsense. Ever since I’ve grown it, I’ve eaten it. There are no bad side effects. This is perfectly good food.

Africans everywhere must come to this realization. We don’t grow nearly enough food. Our production is simply too low. And so we face a stark choice: Do we accept the bleak prospect of permanent dependence, in which we rely upon the wealthy nations of the world to feed us, out of pity? Or do we want to stand on our own and take care of ourselves?

The choice is between aid and trade, and this is no choice at all. We must embrace agricultural growth. We shouldn’t struggle to feed our fellow Africans, but should grow so much that we export our crops around the world.

GM technology is not a panacea. It won’t solve all of our problems. African farmers face a long series of challenges, from an inadequate infrastructure to political corruption. Yet access to the latest crop technologies will give us a fighting chance, especially as the climate changes and we try to adapt to new and possibly harder conditions. Drought-resistant plants represent an especially hopeful opportunity.

Too much of Africa missed out on the Green Revolution. We cannot afford to let Africa ignore the Gene Revolution.

Unfortunately, many people, especially in Europe, don’t want us to benefit from these developments. It reminds me of the worst aspects of South African apartheid.

In 1976, I quit high school to become an anti-apartheid activist, thinking that liberation was more important than education. They’re both essential, of course, and I’m proud to say that over time we saw Nelson Mandela go free and now many of us actually own the land we work. I’m no longer a second-class citizen, but a proud South African with my own passport.

But those were tough times. As a protestor, I was detained by authorities. My brother was beaten. He still has a dent in his skull from that experience. Just thinking about those times brings back memories of pain.

Now we face a new kind of imperialism--an international eco-imperialism that seems to think African farmers should remain poor and desperate, while the rest of the world flourishes. This new breed of activist seeks to keep GM crops away from African farmers and hamper the sale of our GM food to customers in other countries. Almost nothing could be more harmful.

I look forward to a different kind of future, when Africans refuse to let others push us around. We should demand nothing but the best. For those of us who produce the food, that means full access to biotechnology.

Mr. Motlatsi Musi grows maize, beans, potatoes, breeding pigs and cows on 21 hectares he acquired in 2004 through the Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development Program (LRAD) in South Africa. Mr. Musi is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network (www.truthabouttrade.org)

California voters sent a loud-and-clear message to special interests and anti-biotech agitators last week: Keep your hands off our food.

The rejection of Proposition 37, a deeply flawed ballot initiative, shows that an informed electorate can make wise choices about food policy. In the face of a propaganda campaign that relied on junk science and scare tactics, 53 percent of voters said no to Prop 37.

The advocates of this radical proposal had a simple but misleading message: Just label it. They sought to require special labels on certain food products that might carry ingredients derived from biotechnology. Yet their unnecessary rules would have raised everyone’s grocery-store bills and raised suspicion without delivering a single consumer benefit.

Prop 37 also would have been a jackpot for trial lawyers, who were its actual authors. Their goal was to rig a system of complex and burdensome regulations, spawning an untold number of petty and destructive lawsuits whose main purpose was to enrich the most aggressive litigators.

Farmers like me condemned Prop 37. So did doctors. The American Medical Association released a statement on the safety of genetically modified food and the pointlessness of politically motivated labeling. Scientists, grocers, and food producers also joined an impressive coalition of truth tellers.

Early signs suggested that the battle would be hard fought. The first polls hinted that voters might approve Prop 37. The organic food industry and its allies pumped nearly $9 million into an effort to coax voters to favor labeling. They understood the stakes: One of Prop 37’s most prominent backers, Mark Bittman of the New York Times, described the initiative as "the most important vote on food policy this decade."

Media celebrities jumped into the fray as well. On his daytime television show, Dr. Mehmet Oz plumped for Prop 37. "For the first time ever in this country, genetically modified foods are on the ballot," he said on October 17.

Like so many of Oz’s preposterous allegations about biotech crops, this statement was just plain wrong: In 2002, voters in Oregon overwhelmingly rejected a ballot proposal to mandate labeling. Several California counties have voted on biotech crops too.

Yet this was the hallmark of the Yes-on-37 campaign: Bad information, masquerading as fact.

As November approached, an educational campaign on Prop 37 and its defects began to reach the public.

Almost every daily newspaper in California advised voters to spurn Prop 37. They recognized Prop 37 as reckless and harmful. Their unanimity was a rare and remarkable thing, and voters understood the significance of this sweeping rebuff.

The polls started to change, reflecting popular sentiment as it turned against a fatally flawed initiative.

On Election Day, the people finally spoke. And when they did, they spoke decisively.

In beating back Prop 37; they said that America shouldn’t turn away from proven technologies. Nor should consumers bear the cost of expensive regulations that don’t offer any upside.

The most sensible anti-biotech activists may conclude that it’s time to abandon their quixotic quest. GM crops are an essential tool of 21st-century food production; helping farmers from Bakersfield to Burkina Faso grow even more safe and healthy food as they meet the huge challenge of feeding our families and the planet.

Unfortunately, the political battle over food probably will go on. Before the defeat of Prop 37, activists boasted about running similar initiatives in Oregon and Washington. Last week’s rout should discourage them, but perhaps it will drive them to try again, work harder, and spend more. They may also double down on their ruthless demonization of modern food production.

Our victory last week is a case study in success, but almost 4.3 million Californians voted against us. We must continue to tell our compelling story. In the months ahead, we can do it with the knowledge and confidence that educated voters will be on our side.

Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade and Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

"America, I believe we can build on the progress we’ve made," said President Obama early in the morning on Wednesday, during his victory speech in Chicago.

Let’s hope he’s right, especially in the area of free trade. Success will require a renewed commitment to helping Americans sell their goods and services abroad.

It will also take some creative thinking.

Maybe there’s even a special job in it for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. More on that in a moment.

For voters, the top issue in 2012 has been unemployment and the economy. If the United States ever recovers from its current doldrums, exports will have to lead the way--and the Obama administration must open new opportunities for Americans to sell their goods and services around the globe.

Obama’s first term included several notable accomplishments. In the darkest days of the recession, the president promised that exports would double by 2015. Right now, the United States is on track to meet this goal.

That’s the good news. The bad news is that we’re using the wrong yardstick. If exports double by 2015, they’ll double in dollar value only. This is not the best measure of economic health because so much of it depends on currency, inflation, and commodity markets. Export volume matters more--and going by this indicator, we’re nowhere near doubling our exports.

We’re also seeing a slowdown in global trade. The World Trade Organization recently reported that trade in goods probably will grow by only 2.5 percent this year, down from 5 percent last year and 14 percent in 2010. This discouraging trend could erode Obama’s export aspirations.

A poor business cycle explains part of the problem, but policy choices play a large role as well. "Increased protectionism may also be starting to drag on trade," observed The Economist recently.

In the wake of the global financial crisis, most countries avoided the temptation to turn inward. They seemed to have learned the lesson from the 1930s, when deliberate economic isolationism took a bad situation and made it much worse.

Yet now it seems that many governments are flirting with these misguided policies--and the United States is guilty of it too, judging from ongoing trade disputes over everything from steel to tomatoes.

There are a few bright spots, however. Amid all the attention focused on the presidential election, most Americans didn’t notice what happened on October 31, besides Halloween.

On that day, the Panama Free Trade Agreement went into full force, wiping out hundreds of tariffs that made it harder for Americans to do business with Panamanians. Obama formally signed it a year ago, along with a pair of larger and more significant deals involving Colombia and South Korea. The approval of these three pacts--negotiated by the Bush administration but not fully completed until Obama gave them a final push--probably represent Obama’s main legacy of free trade.

At least so far. In his second term, Obama hopes to conclude the Trans Pacific Partnership, which holds the potential to boost trade around the region. The president shouldn’t stop there. He should ask Congress for Trade Promotion Authority and use this vital tool to start new talks with other partners.

Perhaps Romney can help.

During the campaign, he praised the huge potential of increased trade with Latin America.

Would it be crazy to think that Romney could become a special trade diplomat?

"In the weeks ahead," said Obama in the wee hours after his re-election, "I also look forward to sitting down with Governor Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward."

If the 2012 election results tell us anything, it’s that Americans don’t trust single-party rule in Washington and expect their elected leaders to work together for the good of the country. Nothing could send a more powerful signal along these lines than Obama and Romney agreeing to collaborate on trade for the economic good of the United States.

Now that would be progress everyone can believe in.

John Rigolizzo, Jr. is a fifth generation farmer, raising fresh vegetables and field corn in southern New Jersey. The family farm produces for retail and wholesale markets. John is a volunteer board member of Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrrade.org)

In all three of their debates, President Obama and Mitt Romney both mentioned international trade and how it benefits the United States.

"We signed three trade deals into law that are helping us to double our exports and sell more American products around the world," said Obama on October 3, referring to one of his administration’s economic success stories.

"I want to add more free trade agreements so we have more trade," said Romney on October 16, suggesting that he’ll pursue trade diplomacy even more aggressively.

Each time they faced off, the Democratic and Republican contenders were eager to talk trade. It didn’t matter how the Commission on Presidential Debates tried to define the events it sponsored. The first debate focused on domestic issues, the last one concentrated on foreign policy, and the middle forum included both. Trade came up every time.

Yet neither candidate spoke directly about what may be the most essential point about the flow of goods and services across borders: U.S. trade policies prop up commerce all over the world. Global prosperity depends on an America committed to free-trade leadership.

This simple fact became obvious during the festivities surrounding the World Food Prize in Des Moines last month. My organization, Truth about Trade & Technology, held the seventh annual Global Farmer Roundtable, an occasion for farmers from different countries to gather and discuss their common challenges and opportunities. This year, we hosted 15 farmers from 13 nations, including Zimbabwe, New Zealand, and Uruguay.

I wish Obama and Romney could have taken a break from the campaign trail and listened to our guests as they described how farmers and their families depended on the United States for leadership, vision and inspiration.

Because of the United States leadership, the world has come together to lower trade barriers, making it possible for farmers to feed the planet by selling what they grow to consumers they’ll never meet.

Because of the United States leadership, biotechnology holds out the hope for greater agricultural productivity, making it possible to keep up with rising populations.

Because of the United States leadership, global shipping lanes are open and safe, making it possible for merchants to move their products without fear of coordinated military strikes or random acts of piracy.

Americans make all of this possible, but we benefit from it too. The presence of trade encourages peace and prosperity everywhere.

Think of it this way: Like the keystone that supports an arch, our trade policy connects domestic and foreign policy. If the keystone crumbles or vanishes, then the arch collapses, leaving only ruin.

In the third presidential debate, Romney came close to making this point. He cited Admiral Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that America’s top national security threat isn’t China, Iran, or Russia. It isn’t even Islamic terrorists. Instead, it’s our national debt.

If the United States loses economic strength, then the world will become significantly less peaceful and prosperous. Instead, it will descend into war and destitution.

Obama added his own observation: "We’ve got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can project military power overseas."

The good news is that neither Obama nor Romney is a protectionist. From time to time, they have spoken harshly about China--sometimes even a little too harshly--but they have refused to go over to the dark side of economic isolationism.

This is nothing to take for granted. In the heat of election contests, office seekers frequently try to pander to struggling voters by blaming foreign trade for America’s ills. In 2008, when he was a senator running for the White House, candidate Obama threatened to pull out of NAFTA.

Whether he truly meant what he said at the time or merely wanted to stoke populist passions is now a question for historians: As president, he abandoned this rhetoric and became an advocate of global commerce. Romney, for his part, has pledged to expand trade, especially with Latin America.

On Election Day, only one man can prevail. Let’s hope that no matter who comes out on top, free trade triumphs as well. Then everybody wins.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology (www.truthabouttrade.org).

To find the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy and her friends followed the yellow brick road, defeated a wicked witch, and pulled back a green curtain.

To see "The Dr. Oz Show," all you have to do is watch television on a weekday afternoon.

But somebody still needs to pull back the curtain and reveal the truth behind the nonsense.

At least that was my conclusion after catching an episode last week on genetically modified food. Although Dr. Oz made half-hearted gestures toward fair-minded balance, he let his program become a soapbox for wild accusations, unsubstantiated claims, and hysterical advice.

By the end, Dr. Oz was warning viewers not to eat any canola, corn, papayas, soy, or sugar beets grown in the United States because they may be products of biotechnology. His show turned into an infomercial for Proposition 37, a badly flawed anti-biotech ballot initiative that soon goes before California voters.

Dr. Oz is Mehmet Oz, a medical doctor who became a television celebrity for his guest appearances with Oprah Winfrey, Larry King, and others. Three years ago, he launched his own show and now millions of viewers tune in.

Sometimes they receive sound medical and nutritional advice. Other times, however, they hear about quack therapies such as "energy healing" or obtain instructions on using psychics to communicate with dead people. Oz is a two-time recipient of the Pigasus Award, a tongue-in-cheek prize whose purpose is to expose media frauds and junk-science peddlers.

I’m not a physician, but my advice is only to watch Dr. Oz with a heavy dose of skepticism.

I had taken a personal interest in the October 17 show because I had been invited to appear on it, and was looking forward to describing the benefits of 21st-century agriculture to a general audience.

Alas, the producers called back and said they didn’t need me. One of the iron laws of talk-show television is that you can’t be sure you’re on until you’re actually on.

Yet I still want to say my piece. People need to know the truth about biotech crops--and much of what they heard from Dr. Oz was false.

I’ve been farming in Iowa for four decades, and I’ve seen agriculture evolve in countless ways. About 15 years ago, I started to grow GM plants. I witnessed the benefits immediately as my yields went up. I grew more food on the same land and did it with fewer chemical sprays. This is sustainable agriculture at work.

The benefits became even clearer this summer, during the drought. If it wasn’t the worst dry spell I’ve endured, it was the second-worst, following the one we suffered in 1988.

That year, I eked out just 93 bushels of corn per acre. This summer, I grew about 200, even though rainfall levels were the same.

The difference between then and now is the minimum tillage methods we use and the GM crop technology we have access to. As plants, they’re stronger, healthier, and just plain more robust. Even in terrible conditions, they produce.

If we’re going to feed a hungry world, we need crops like these--not merely for farmers like me, but for growers in the developing world.

Best of all, GM foods are completely safe. They’ve been tested and retested, winning endorsements from groups as diverse as the American Medical Association and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Only cranks refuse to recognize this overwhelming consensus. Yet one of Dr. Oz’s guests talked like a conspiracy theorist, insulting the conclusions of the AMA and UNFAO as "tobacco science" and warning of "the cover-up."

Dr. Oz and other anti-biotech crusaders recently have tried to tout a European study that says GM foods cause cancer in rats. Yet they always fail to mention that mainstream scientists have debunked this study thoroughly. Just this week, the High Court of Biotechnology which advises the French Government said the study is flawed.

Now that’s a cover-up worthy of the Wizard of Oz.

The real agenda of Dr. Oz’s show on biotech food was political. It aimed to promote California’s Prop. 37, a poorly written initiative that threatens to raise grocery-store prices, depress innovation, and pad the pockets of trial lawyers.

Upon pulling back the curtain, we discover that Dr. Oz is no wizard. He’s a charlatan.

Tim Burrack raises corn, soybeans and pork on a NE Iowa family farm. He volunteers as a Board Member of Truth About Trade and Technology. www.truthabouttrade.org

When the United States votes on November 6, many Kenyans will want to see if Americans will re-elect President Obama, with whom we share a kinship through his Kenyan father.

Yet there’s another election that matters even more to us--not just as Kenyans, but as Africans who live on a hungry continent, where food insecurity poses a daily threat.

Nobody outside California can vote on Proposition 37, a ballot initiative that would require labels for many types of food that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. If it passes, however, Proposition 37 will hurt global efforts to improve food production through modern technology.

Advocates of the proposal say that consumers have a right to know what they’re eating. That’s true enough, and the U.S. federal government already requires clear and comprehensive nutritional information to appear on food packages. The American Medical Association says that there is no scientific justification for adding additional details about biotech ingredients. It would simply confuse grocery-store shoppers, who might worry that such food presents a health risk.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the last 15 years, farmers around the world have grown more than 3 billion acres of GM crops. No credible scientific evidence has shown food with GM ingredients to have caused as much as a sneeze, let alone actual harm. GM crops are perfectly safe.

Farmers plant GM crops because they’re better than traditional varieties: They grow more food on less land, need fewer herbicides and pesticides, and fight soil erosion because they reduce tillage. They are models of economic and environmental sustainability.

They’re also essential to feeding the planet. Demographers say that by 2050, global food production must double. The only way to meet this goal is through innovation. Just as farmers throughout history have crossbred plants to create new crops, we must now deploy the modern tools of biotechnology to coax higher yields from existing agricultural land.

The good news is that many nations already have embraced GM farming. In the United States, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil, the vast majority of corn and soybeans are the products of biotechnology. They’re no longer cutting-edge crops, but utterly conventional. People eat food with GM ingredients every day.

Yet in many poor countries--and especially in sub-Saharan Africa--biotechnology has spread slowly. Anti-globalization activists have crusaded against them, wrongly insisting that old-fashioned farming practices are adequate in the 21st century. Tellingly, few of these protestors have backgrounds in either farming or the science of crop biotechnology.

When it comes to food production, farmers know best. Here in Kenya, our access to biotech crops is limited--but we’re about to make significant progress, with the government’s imminent release of GM corn (maize) seed. It will help us feed a growing population.

The passage of Proposition 37, however, would undermine food security--right away in California, and very soon everywhere.

One study says that if Proposition 37 wins approval, the annual food costs of the average California family will rise by $350. That’s because the law’s complicated requirements would force food companies to alter their methods of packaging and production.

Yet Proposition 37 would carry an even higher price tag outside the borders of California. It would cast suspicion on a vital technology. Labels will stigmatize GM food, and companies that perform research and development into biotech agriculture will start to have second thoughts. If poor political choices can trump sound science, they may begin to invest their resources in other areas.

Africa has a rooting interest in these developments. Not only do we want basic varieties of GM corn, but we hope to have access to other kinds of GM crops plus different types of GM traits, such as drought resistance. This is the key to my continent’s ability to feed itself.

Thomas Friedman reminds us that the world is flat: We live in a global village, where legal and scientific events that occur in one place quickly reverberate in the four corners of the earth. Political decisions in California will soon catch up with farmers everywhere, from Honduras to India to my little 25-acre farming plot in western Kenya.

Gilbert Arap Bor grows corn (maize), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya. He also teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus. Mr. Bor is the 2011 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network.

By Gilbert arap Bor: Kapseret, Kenya

When the United States votes on November 6, many Kenyans will want to see if Americans will re-elect President Obama, with whom we share a kinship through his Kenyan father.

Yet there’s another election that matters even more to us--not just as Kenyans, but as Africans who live on a hungry continent, where food insecurity poses a daily threat.

Nobody outside California can vote on Proposition 37, a ballot initiative that would require labels for many types of food that contain genetically modified (GM) ingredients. If it passes, however, Proposition 37 will hurt global efforts to improve food production through modern technology.

Advocates of the proposal say that consumers have a right to know what they’re eating. That’s true enough, and the U.S. federal government already requires clear and comprehensive nutritional information to appear on food packages. The American Medical Association says that there is no scientific justification for adding additional details about biotech ingredients. It would simply confuse grocery-store shoppers, who might worry that such food presents a health risk.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the last 15 years, farmers around the world have grown more than 3 billion acres of GM crops. No credible scientific evidence has shown food with GM ingredients to have caused as much as a sneeze, let alone actual harm. GM crops are perfectly safe.

Farmers plant GM crops because they’re better than traditional varieties: They grow more food on less land, need fewer herbicides and pesticides, and fight soil erosion because they reduce tillage. They are models of economic and environmental sustainability.

They’re also essential to feeding the planet. Demographers say that by 2050, global food production must double. The only way to meet this goal is through innovation. Just as farmers throughout history have crossbred plants to create new crops, we must now deploy the modern tools of biotechnology to coax higher yields from existing agricultural land.

The good news is that many nations already have embraced GM farming. In the United States, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil, the vast majority of corn and soybeans are the products of biotechnology. They’re no longer cutting-edge crops, but utterly conventional. People eat food with GM ingredients every day.

Yet in many poor countries--and especially in sub-Saharan Africa--biotechnology has spread slowly. Anti-globalization activists have crusaded against them, wrongly insisting that old-fashioned farming practices are adequate in the 21st century. Tellingly, few of these protestors have backgrounds in either farming or the science of crop biotechnology.

When it comes to food production, farmers know best. Here in Kenya, our access to biotech crops is limited--but we’re about to make significant progress, with the government’s imminent release of GM corn (maize) seed. It will help us feed a growing population.

The passage of Proposition 37, however, would undermine food security--right away in California, and very soon everywhere.

One study says that if Proposition 37 wins approval, the annual food costs of the average California family will rise by $350. That’s because the law’s complicated requirements would force food companies to alter their methods of packaging and production.

Yet Proposition 37 would carry an even higher price tag outside the borders of California. It would cast suspicion on a vital technology. Labels will stigmatize GM food, and companies that perform research and development into biotech agriculture will start to have second thoughts. If poor political choices can trump sound science, they may begin to invest their resources in other areas.

Africa has a rooting interest in these developments. Not only do we want basic varieties of GM corn, but we hope to have access to other kinds of GM crops plus different types of GM traits, such as drought resistance. This is the key to my continent’s ability to feed itself.

Thomas Friedman reminds us that the world is flat: We live in a global village, where legal and scientific events that occur in one place quickly reverberate in the four corners of the earth. Political decisions in California will soon catch up with farmers everywhere, from Honduras to India to my little 25-acre farming plot in western Kenya.

Gilbert Arap Bor grows corn (maize), vegetables and dairy cows on a small-scale farm of 25 acres in Kapseret, near Eldoret, Kenya. He also teaches at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa, Eldoret campus. Mr. Bor is the 2011 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient and a member of the Truth About Trade & Technology Global Farmer Network.

My last visit to the United States changed the way I farm on the other side of the world.

In 2009, I traveled from India to Des Moines to attend the Global Farmers Roundtable, a project of Truth about Trade and Technology, held in conjunction with the World Food Prize. I met farmers from Iowa as well as Australia, Honduras, South Africa, and elsewhere. We learned about each other’s work, discussed common challenges and opportunities, and enjoyed some of the best sweet corn I’ve ever tasted.

When I returned to India, I worked with a group of local farmers to open a new sweet corn processing factory. The knowledge I gained in the United States made it possible. I’ll always be grateful to Iowa and the people I met at the Global Farmer Roundtable and World Food Prize for pointing us in the right direction.

I hope Indian farmers can imitate Iowa farmers in other ways as well. Most importantly, we must embrace biotechnology--or at least we must be allowed to embrace biotechnology. Right now, large forces and special interests are blocking the way. They must be stopped.

More than 1.2 billion people call India home. By 2025, demographers say that we’ll pass China as the most populous nation on the planet.

Many of our people are already poor and malnourished--and the problem could grow worse. If we’re to thrive in the years ahead, India must adopt the very latest technologies in agriculture.

This happened once before, during the Green Revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, when new seeds, methods, and equipment transformed farming in developing nations. The success of this movement is said to have saved billions of lives.

Now we have to do it again, this time with biotechnology as one of the tools. If last century’s improvement was the Green Revolution, then this century’s innovation is the Gene Revolution. The United States and many other countries--Argentina, Brazil, and Canada--already are taking full advantage of it. By growing genetically modified crops, their farmers enjoy large yields that are the envy of growers everywhere.

Now much of the rest of the world must adopt this solution. India is not the only country with swelling numbers of people. To keep up with global growth, the world’s farmers have to double food production by 2050--and we have to do it largely on land that’s already in cultivation. In other words, we must grow more with less.

India faces particular problems. Our crop yields are stagnant or dropping. Many young people avoid farming, believing it’s a profession for the poor and illiterate. To top it off, our government does little to promote agriculture.

The problem isn’t that we have no biotechnology in India: Many farmers plant GM cotton. They know the amazing benefits. I’ve grown GM cotton several times myself, appreciating the boost in yield and the reduced reliance on herbicides. It requires just one spray, whereas non-GM cotton needs six applications or more. That makes GM cotton healthier for farmers, in addition to being economically sensible.

Yet we don’t have access to other kinds of biotechnology--most notably brinjal, which Americans call eggplant. For Indians, it’s a staple crop. In 2010, GM brinjal was on the verge of commercial approval. Researchers had perfected it and farmers wanted it, but our government in New Delhi said no. It bowed to political pressure from special interests that took advantage of widespread illiteracy and scientific ignorance.

I’m returning to the United States next week, once again for the World Food Prize. This time, I’m the recipient of the Kleckner Trade and Technology Advancement Award. It’s a humbling honor--and one that I hope will allow me to go back to my home with additional credibility, as I continue to advocate for biotechnology in India as well as the rest of the developing world.

I want to keep on changing the way we farm--and I hope Americans will continue to help me and my fellow farmers make the most of the Gene Revolution, for the sake of India and the world.

Rajesh Kumar farms 120 acres in two regions of India, using irrigation to grow brinjal, sweet corn, baby corn, tomatoes and other vegetables. He sells fresh produce directly to consumers through kiosks at several locations and runs a food processing unit for canning of vegetables. Mr.Kumarwill be recognized as the 2012 Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award recipient in Des Moines, Iowa on October 16 during the TATT Global Farmer Roundtable / World Food Prize events. He is a member of the TATT Global Farmer Network.

The pistachios I grow on my farm aren’t genetically modified, so I was astonished to learn that if Proposition 37 passes next month, the new labeling law will affect my crop.

There won’t even be a good reason for it. Prop 37 would deliver another hard blow in a bad economy--and it will hurt not just me, but every Californian.

Advocates of Prop 37 say they support the "right to know." They repeat this phrase like a mantra.

So let’s exercise our right to know. Prop 37 is widely described as a referendum to require special labels for foods with genetically modified ingredients, but it’s much more than this. Its wording is full of political agendas, bizarre contradictions, and hidden costs that will drive up your grocery-store bill.

The first thing to know is that Prop 37 wasn’t drafted by concerned consumers. Instead, it was written by a trial lawyer, James Wheaton. He and his fellow litigators have a financial stake in the passage of Prop 37. Their scheme is to search for opportunities to sue anybody who fails to comply with Prop 37’s complicated requirements.

A number of years ago, Wheaton wrote Prop 65, an ineffective law that requires business to post signs about chemicals. Wheaton’s law firm has collected more than $3 million by suing California businesses for alleged violations of Prop 65, many of them minor.

Mom-and-pop grocers may find themselves especially vulnerable to Prop 37 lawsuits because unlike chain stores, they don’t retain lawyers to help them navigate the fine print of new regulations. They’ll be easy marks for aggressive attorneys.

While Wheaton and his lawyer buddies get rich, you’re going to become a bit poorer. According to one estimate, Prop 37 will make the average California family spend an extra $350 per year on food. That’s because the law will demand new methods of production, distribution, and packaging. Companies will pass these additional costs on to consumers.

People who are least able to pay will suffer the most: seniors on fixed incomes, the unemployed, and the poor.

Perhaps these high costs would be worth it if Prop 37 were to deliver a benefit. Unfortunately, it doesn’t. "There is no scientific justification for special labeling of bioengineered foods," said the American Medical Association this summer, in an official policy statement.

Who do you trust more about the safety and nutritional value of your food: lawyers or doctors?

Prop 37 is also full of loopholes. It carves out exceptions for food served in restaurants, which would not have to carry labels. Alcohol, cheese, meat, and milk also would receive special treatment.

Oddly enough, pet food probably will have to carry labels. That’s nice: Apparently your dog will enjoy a complete "right to know," even if you don’t.

No wonder the Sacramento Bee editorialized against Prop 37: "We don’t oppose labeling of genetically modified food," it wrote, but this particular referendum "is a classic example of an initiative that shouldn’t be on the ballot."

The weird treatment of my pistachio farm provides an excellent example of why Prop 37 is so misconceived.

My pistachio trees are not genetically modified, and they behave just as pistachio trees are supposed to behave: They grow nuts, whose shells crack open naturally. We harvest the pistachios, then roast and salt them.

Before shipping them off, we put them in packages, which describe our product as "naturally opened pistachios." That’s what they are, so that’s what we call them.

Prop 37 will make us stop. The problem is the word "naturally." Our pistachio shells may split open on their own, without any human help. Yet we can’t say they open "naturally" because Prop 37 redefines the word. When we roast and salt our pistachios, we somehow make them unnatural--at least according to Prop 37’s crazy definition.

If Prop 37 passes, I’ll suffer from a competitive disadvantage. I’ll have to rethink my entire business model because of a flawed law. Meantime, trial lawyers will line their pockets as you bear the cost of higher food prices for pistachios and many other ordinary products.

Fellow Californians: You not only have a right to know this--you need to know this.

Ted Sheely raises lettuce, cotton, tomatoes, wheat, pistachios, wine grapes and garlic on a family farm in the California San Joaquin Valley. He volunteers as a board member for Truth About Trade & Technology www.truthabouttrade.org

"No," I said. "He’s not the most famous farmer in America. He’s the most famous farmer in the world."

I know, I know: "Famous farmer" is an oxymoron. Although growing food is one of the most important jobs around, the work is done in near-anonymity.

Yet in the halls of power, Dean became known as the great champion of U.S.­­ agriculture. Last month, he stepped down as chairman of Truth about Trade & Technology--and we all owe him a tremendous debt for having devoted his life to American farming.

Dean grew up in northern Iowa, near the town of Rudd, working in the fields alongside his father. When he started out, all farming was organic--or "primitive," as Dean likes to joke. He still remembers the first time his family used commercial fertilizer: "The corn shot up faster, the fields grew greener, and there was more of everything," he wrote in a 2008 column. "We never looked back."

That’s for sure: When it came to farming, Dean always looked forward.

He also looked outward, becoming an advocate of ordinary farmers. For a decade, he headed the Iowa Farm Bureau.

That was when I first met him. I was a state delegate to a convention. We were debating some issue, and Dean had left the room for a few minutes. While he was gone, we voted to take a certain action. When Dean came back, he heard what we had done. Then he calmly explained why we were mistaken.

We knew he was right. We reversed our decision. He had turned us around 180 degrees. He was wise and clear-thinking.

Dean went on to become president of the American Farm Bureau, winning seven consecutive two-year terms.

This was when global leaders in agriculture came to know Dean. He represented the United States in world trade talks, making sure that American farmers gained access to new markets. Yet he always remembered that trade talks are a two-way street, and he took the time to understand the agricultural interests of other countries. Dean was successful because he’s such an excellent listener--the very opposite of the "ugly American" stereotype.

Dean may have traveled the world, but he never lost sight of where he came from. He continued to grow corn and soybeans and raise hogs, back near the town of Rudd. He still cheers for the St. Louis Cardinals and loves to eat at Cracker Barrel.

After he left the AFB, Dean joined Truth about Trade & Technology, an organization that I had helped form with a few fellow farmers. We really needed his help.

We had sensed the need for a farmer-led group that would seek to improve America’s ability to sell its goods and services across borders. We also wanted farmers in the United States and around the world to enjoy access to advanced technologies, including genetically modified crops.

We had a grand vision--but knew we needed broader expertise to implement it and make a difference.

That changed when Dean joined TATT. With the most respected voice in agriculture, he jump-started the organization--and turned it into a deliberative and influential promoter of everything from free-trade agreements to consumer acceptance of biotechnology.

Now Dean has stepped down as chairman, but it would be wrong to conclude that he has retired. Just last week, he wrote a column for TATT on the importance of Trade Promotion Authority as TATT’s Chairman Emeritus. I’m sure we’ll hear from him again soon.

In 2007, the board of TATT created the Kleckner Trade & Technology Advancement Award, honoring a global farmer who has demonstrated "strong leadership, vision, and resolve in advancing the rights of all farmers to choose the technology and tools that will improve the quality, quantity, and availability of agricultural products around the world." Next month, we’ll give it away for the sixth time.

We thought the award would be a great way to recognize a deserving recipient as well as show how much Dean has meant to farmers in the United States and abroad.

We created the Kleckner Award when Dean was out of the room. Nobody thought for a second to reverse the decision.

Bill Horan grows corn, soybeans and other grains with his brother on a family farm based in North Central Iowa. Bill volunteers as a board member and serves as Chairman for Truth About Trade & Technology. www.truthabouttrade.org

President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney disagree over budgets, health care, and what to do about unrest in the Middle East. When they meet for their first presidential debate on October 3 in Denver, they’ll have a brand-new opportunity to highlight their many differences.

Wouldn’t it be nice if they spent at least a few moments finding common ground? Voters are tired of gridlock in Washington and it would hearten them to see these ideological rivals describe areas of agreement.

I would suggest they start with international trade, which both men claim they want to expand. Specifically, the candidates should say that no matter who takes the oath of office in January, the next president must have Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

The United States simply can’t forge new free-trade agreements without it.

The idea behind TPA is simple: It lets the president’s team negotiate with other countries, find progressive consensus and make a deal, and then submit the proposed pacts to Congress for up-or-down votes.

TPA is a practical tool that allows our trade diplomats to pry open new markets for American-made goods and services, helping everyone from farmers and manufacturers to insurance agents and Hollywood moviemakers. The up-or-down vote is essential because it respects the authority of Congress to weigh in on pending agreements but also prevents individual legislators from trying to reopen trade talks after they’ve been completed. (They’ll say to "make improvements".)

In other words, it gives the president and his administration the genuine authority to negotiate.

Think of it this way: When you want to purchase a car, you visit an auto dealership and search for a sales representative. (Actually, the sales reps always seem to find you. That’s just how those guys are.)